Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Basic Petrol Ration (Withdrawal)

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether in view of the difficulties for the public in general and for the tourist trade in particular, occasioned by the ban on basic petrol, he will consider restoring the basic ration at an early date.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has now any statement to make on the reintroduction of a basic petrol ration this year.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I will answer these Questions by referring the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 22nd January to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory).

Mr. Nutting: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very serious effect which the ban on basic petrol is having on hotels, and that that effect has been considerably increased by the partial removal of the ban on Foreign travel, as will be seen from the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of many hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House. Will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am probably more aware of public feeling in this matter than most other hon. Members since a large number of citizens take care to inform me

of their views, but I am also very conscious of the drain on our dollar and cold reserve.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in making up his mind on this matter has done almost as much damage as the original disastrous decision?

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider more sympathetically applications from working men who use motor cycles to go to work when the distance they have to travel is more than seven miles and no public transport is available?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is hardly possible to answer in general terms a question of that kind, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any particular cases into which he wants me to look, I shall be happy to do so.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the cost to the taxpayer of administering the ban on the basic petrol ration.

Mr. Gaitskell: The cost of additional staff and overtime since the abolition of the basic ration is approximately £10,500 per month.

Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister recognise that this is one of the most unappreciated wastes of public money?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, it is not a waste of public money.

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give an estimate of the saving in sterling that has been effected by the abolition of the basic petrol ration, including the extra allocation to private and public users, based upon the coupon validity of 1½ gallons, and on a coupon validity of ½ gallon.

Mr. Gaitskell: The saving in sterling from the withdrawal of the basic ration excluding other economies is estimated to have been about £150,000 a week during December. Had there been a basic ration of one third of the rate previously in force, this saving would theoretically have been reduced by about one third.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not obvious that the amount being saved is a miserable one


compared with the dislocation to the life of the country through the withdrawal of the basic petrol ration?

Bankside Power Station

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel what progress has been made with the experiments for eliminating sulphur from oil fuel; and whether he can confirm the assurance given by the Government in May last that such elimination is a sine qua non of the scheme for an oil-burning power station at Bankside.

Mr. Gaitskell: The pilot gas-washing plant which will be used to determine the most efficient type of installation for the Bankside Power Station is expected to be ready for operation by June of this year. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the work on Bankside appears to be in progress if this sine qua non has not yet been achieved?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will look into it, but I can give an assurance again that it will not be completed unless we are satisfied that no sulphur fumes will be produced.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that in no circumstances will there be an attempt to rebuild or enlarge the Bank-side power station to run it on coal?

Mr. Gaitskell: Those assurances have been given more than once, and I am happy to repeat them.

Grampian Electricity Supply Company (Timber Licence)

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the Grampian Electricity Supply Company are unable to proceed with their plans for the provision of a supply of electricity at Muchalls, Kincardineshire, where it is urgently needed for milk production, heating and lighting purposes, owing to their inability to obtain the necessary licences for timber, despite the fact that the construction of the distribution network is scheduled under the Scottish Highlands Electricity Order, 1938; and if he will authorise the issue of the licences required forthwith.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is an acute shortage of wooden poles for the overhead transmission of electricity, and the issue of licences is accordingly limited to certain priority categories. These categories include food production, but the application in question is almost entirely for general domestic purposes, and the requirement for milk production, to which the hon. Member refers, is negligible. I am very sorry, therefore, that I am unable at the present time to issue a licence in this case.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Minister hold out any hope that this application—it has been outstanding since 1938, the houses are all wired and ready for the supply and it involves only two miles of line—will be carried out soon?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would not wish to hold out any hope so long as the shortage of poles is so acute. In this case many poles will be required.

Supplementary Petrol Allowances

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what petrol ration is proposed for the use of yachts during the coming season.

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether an allowance of petrol coupons will be made available during this year to those who wish to travel by car in this country for their annual holiday.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will make an issue of petrol coupons for holiday purposes, such issue to be made before Easter so that families may be encouraged to take their holidays early in accordance with the staggered holidays campaign.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am unable to say when the economic position of the country will permit the restoration of petrol allowances for holiday motoring, private yachts and other non-essential purposes.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right non. Gentleman classify yachting as a non-essential purpose, having regard to the work of yachtmen during the war?

Mr. Gaitskell: In the present circumstances it can certainly be regarded as non-essential.

Brigadier Peto: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this will impose great hardship on many who earn their living through the tourist industry, apart from those who wish to take their holidays in this way?

Mr. D. Marshall: May I ask the Minister to read the speech of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his first Budget, in which he disagreed entirely with the statement which the Minister has just made?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am always glad to read any pronouncement of my right hon. Friend, but the circumstances of today are not quite the same as they were two years ago.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that the statement made recently, that the position would be reviewed again in June, will cause many motorists to hold back their holidays hoping that petrol may come back, and thereby clutter up the holiday resorts?

Mr. Gaitskell: I appreciate the need for an earlier statement on this subject.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the railways will be quite unable to deal with all the extra holiday traffic put upon them?

Mr. Speaker: This Question deals with yachts and petrol only?

Mr. Low: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the effect that this statement may have upon the staggered holidays campaign? Will he say whether he will review the position in June or in May or in April, or whether he will review the position at all this year?

An Hon. Member: April 1st.

Mr. Gaitskell: I said I would review the position before June—I should hope before the end of March.

Mr. Grimston: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, having regard to the fact that many farmers and farm workers are unable to use public transport for recreational and social purposes owing to the exigencies of their work, he will grant a small allowance of petrol for this purpose.

Mr. Gaitskell: I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Paddington, North (Captain Field) on this subject on 27th November.

Mr. Grimston: Is the Minister aware that that answer does not cover the point which I specifically raise in this Question? Here I am asking if anything can be done for those in the agricultural industry, the exigencies of whose work prevents them from taking advantage of public transport, particularly those who have to look after animals, and who cannot be sure of what their hours of work will be?

Mr. Gaitskell: The difficulty is chiefly an administrative one. I have looked at it sympathetically because of the special hardship, but it is not possible to make special arrangements.

Mr. Grimston: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at it in the interests of those engaged in agriculture?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am always prepared to do my best.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many appeals against a refusal to grant supplementary petrol and against the quantity granted were outstanding at the latest convenient date.

Mr. Gaitskell: As I announced on 15th January, the number of appeals outstanding on r3th January was 15,429. I propose to make a further statement in the middle of the month.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will those statements be made in following months; will they be made monthly?

Mr. Gaitskell: So long as it appears to be necessary.

Hire Cars and Taxis (Radius Restriction)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if a decision has yet been reached as to whether hire cars are to be restricted to any particular radius; and what radius has been decided upon for urban and rural areas, respectively

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir. I have come to the conclusion that such a restriction must now be imposed. Accordingly I


propose to make an order limiting the radius of operation of hire cars and taxis to 20 miles from the place in which they are normally kept, except when required for urgent and necessary domestic purposes or in connection with the hirer's profession or business.

Mr. Digby: Are we to understand that this is to be an even more stringent restriction than that in force during the war? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the special hardship it will impose on people who live in the countryside and are already suffering greatly from the abolition of basic petrol?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir, this is not such a serious restriction as that imposed during the war. The radius is wider. I must point out that many citizens feel very strongly that long-distance hired car trips are intolerable in the present circumstances

Mr. Grimston: Will this Order apply also to motor coaches for hire?

Mr. Gaitskell: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on that question.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister reconsider this matter, particularly in the case of East Anglia, where the train services are extremely irregular, and where many people, especially soldiers on leave, have to travel enormous distances from the only stations to which they can catch the last train?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should have thought that a radius of 20 miles was quite sufficient to take care of all normal purposes.

Mr. Granville Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say what action he proposes taking to see that the regulation is observed?

Mr. Gaitskell: It will be an offence to use a car beyond a radius of 20 miles, unless the conditions I have mentioned are observed.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: What arrangements will the right hon. Gentleman make in the case of an elderly person who wishes to visit an equally elderly relation who is seriously ill 30 or 40 miles away?

Mr. Gaitskell: It depends on the circumstances. I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Nicholson: What are the arrangements? Where can they make application?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no need for any application as long as it is within the limit.

Foreign Travel (Motor Cars)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if persons who take advantage of the removal of the ban on travel abroad will be allowed to take their motor cars.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. I cannot grant allowances of petrol to motorists taking holidays abroad to enable them to get their cars to the ports.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that the value of the removal of the ban on holidays abroad is lessened considerably if people cannot take their cars with them, and as only a small allowance of petrol will be required, will he not have another look at it?

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot agree to grant petrol to enable people to motor abroad when it is denied to them to motor at home.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: According to the wording of the Minister's answer, a motorist who takes his car to the port by rail, can take it abroad. Is that, in fact, what he means? Will he look at it again?

Mr. Gaitskell: I can only control the petrol issued to motorists. Any other question connected with travelling abroad must be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Domestic Heating (Appliances)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether the Interdepartmental Committee on domestic heating has yet recommended that the output of improved solid-fuel-burning appliances makes it possible to act on the recommendation of the Fuel and Power Advisory Council that the manufacture and sale of new appliances falling below approved standards should be prohibited as soon as possible; and how soon the prohibition will be issued.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. The committee have reported that the output of improved solid-fuel burning appliances is not yet sufficient to justify this step.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister agree that there is no more fruitful way of saving coal than to instal these improved domestic grates? Will he say whether he accepts the recommendation of the Advisory Council and will put it into force as soon as possible?

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, we have accepted that recommendation and I entirely agree that it is most desirable, but we cannot take such a drastic step as prohibiting the production of these older appliances until we are satisfied that it is practicable.

Petrol Supplies, British Empire (Allocations)

Mr. Grimston: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, having regard to the fact that the British Empire is treated as a whole with regard to petrol supplies, and that all parts of the Empire, with the exception of the United Kingdom enjoy either basic ration or are free of petrol rationing, he will consider with the other Governments concerned the possibility of a reallocation of supplies in such a manner as to permit of the re-introduction of a small basic ration in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gaitskell: As I have explained to the hon. Member, this matter has already been discussed with the Commonwealth Governments, who fully appreciate the necessity of reducing petrol consumption and all forms of dollar expenditure. The extent to which, and the way in which, this is being achieved, must depend largely on local circumstances.

Mr. Grimston: Is the Minister aware that a few years ago his predecessor, when asked for relaxations in this country, said that that could not be entertained because one had to bear in mind the Commonwealth position? Why is it that it does not work the other way round, as many parts of the Commonwealth still have a basic ration, whereas it has been taken away altogether over here?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to suggest that any of the Commonwealth Governments are not doing their duty in this matter.

Mr. Grimston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the point, and that is not my suggestion? My suggestion is—and I ask him to consider this—that the Government here are ready to refuse increases in petrol because they say conditions in the Commonwealth must be taken into account, but will not this consideration apply the other way round?

Mr. Gaitskell: The Commonwealth Governments have made substantial reductions, but their circumstances are not the same as the circumstances here.

Mr. Ganamans: Why is it that Ceylon can abolish rationing altogether, while this country cannot even have a small basic ration?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have observed that report in the Press, and I am making inquiries. I do not think the hon. Member should reach any conclusions until we know what exactly are the facts.

Mr. William Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the reductions actually made by those other countries?

Mr. Gaitskell: I will consider that suggestion.

Petrol Offences, Nottingham (Prosecutions)

Mrs. Florence Paton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the number of prosecutions and convictions for the wrongful use of petrol in the Nottingham area; and whether he is satisfied that the police check-up in this area is efficient.

Mr. Gaitskell: I understand that three prosecutions, each resulting in conviction, have been instituted by the police in Nottingham during December and January for the wrongful use of petrol. With regard to the second part of the Question, although my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not within my province to comment, I have no doubt that the police are doing their best, with the means at their disposal, to enforce the law.

Mrs. Paton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread belief in this area that there is much illegal use of petrol? Can he explain the increase in advertisements in the Press advertising long-distance motor coach journeys, which is causing a great deal of resentment among small petrol users?

Mr. Gaitskell: Questions regarding the police and their ability to enforce the law, should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Questions regarding the use of motor coaches should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while responsible citizens recognise the need for saving petrol the facts are, as pointed out by Miss Rose Macaulay in "The Times" this morning, that there is considerable resentment against people getting away with the wrong use of petrol? Will he consult with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make sure that the police are adequately checking up on the misuse of petrol allowed?

Mr. Erroll: Is it not more important that the police should try to stop thieving and more serious offences?

Mrs. Leah Manning: Why does my right hon. Friend refer this question of motor coaches to the Minister of Transport, when it must be through him that the petrol is obtained for these coaches?

Mr. Gaitskell: Because my right hon. Friend is responsible for the issue of petrol to motor coaches.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Minister of Transport does not answer Questions in this House?

Oil Burning Incubator Equipment

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of the unsatisfactory quality of the oil now issued to poultry farmers for use in brooders and incubators; and if he will arrange for a higher grade of oil to be made available so that the hatching of eggs and rearing of chicks can be carried on without undue risk of loss.

Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, Sir, I am aware that the quality of the oil at present being supplied to poultry farmers is not entirely satisfactory. This is due to the difficulty of obtaining sufficient quantities of the special grade of oil required. The Petroleum Board have issued a circular to the poultry Press, and a number of agricultural organisations, making certain recommendations about the care and maintenance of oil burning incubator

equipment which, if carefully observed, should result in satisfactory operation.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister consult with the oil companies to see if it is not possible to get a sufficient quantity of this high-grade oil for this particular purpose?

Mr. Gaitskell: I have already been in touch with them on the matter.

Hire Cars and Taxis, London (Petrol Allowance)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what quantity of motor spirit was authorised for use by hire cars and taxis in the Metropolitan area during the last quarter of 1946 and 1947, respectively.

Mr. Gaitskell: During the four months ending 31st December, 1946, 17,534 tons; during the same months in 1947, 16,334 tons.

Captain Crowder: In view of the shortage of transport in the Metropolitan area, could the Minister see his way to giving a larger allocation to taxicabs?

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that is really called for, but I am going to see a deputation from the taxicab association.

Petroleum Products, British Companies

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the quantities of petroleum products supplied by British-controlled companies during 1947 to each country; and if he will state orally whether, before permitting supplies to a country in the sterling area, he inquires whether consumers in that country are either not rationed or enjoy a basic ration.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. I cannot publish information about trading operations or British-controlled companies which is supplied to my Department confidentially. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston).

Mr. Keeling: Does the Minister think it right that sterling countries, in which everybody can get petrol, should be given a priority over this country where so many people cannot get any at all?

Mr. Gaitskell: It clearly depends on the circumstances. If the countries happen to be supplying a large quantity of gold to the Commonwealth that may well be a good argument.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is not the necessary corollary of the Minister's answer that the British petroleum companies can sell their petroleum products in any other countries they like, whereas that is not so?

Mr. Gaitskell: I did not say that but I said I could not publish information which had been supplied to me confidentially by these companies.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that he will not exercise any influence on the oil companies to discourage them from giving this information?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly.

Tractor Vapourising Oil (Imports)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what proportion of our imports of tractor vapourising oil during 1947 was paid for in dollars; and what proportion in sterling.

Mr. Gaitskell: Approximately 48 per cent. was purchased for dollars and 52 per cent. for sterling.

Mr. Erroll: How does this compare with petrol?

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not very different.

Petrol Coupons (Commercial Travellers)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why bonâ fide commercial travellers are only issued with S petrol coupons; and whether he will change them over to E coupons to enable the commercial travellers to purchase new tyres for their vehicles as many of them are unable to continue their businesses owing to worn-out tyres.

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot issue E coupons to any class of car owner merely to provide a claim for replacement of tyres. The conditions governing the supply of tyres for motor vehicles are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that his administration is bearing harshly on commercial travellers, and will he take up this matter with the President of the Board of Trade with a view to getting an alteration?

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure my right hon. Friend is naturally anxious to do anything he can to help the commercial community.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Bunker and Export Coal (Prices)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what protests he has received from the shipping industry against the further increase of 25s. per ton in the bunker price of coal for foreign-going ships; and whether, in view of the increased foreign competition he will make a statement on the position.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have received a resolution of protest from the Leith Shipowners Society. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) on 18th December

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this increase may make it very difficult for us to achieve our targets on the export side, and will he look into this matter again?

Mr. Gaitskell: I cannot agree with that. There is no evidence whatever that that is the case.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answers he gave to me were with regard to the 25s. increase in the case of fishing trawlers, which has since been removed, and did not relate to general shipping?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Gentleman will turn up my answer, he will see that it related not only to trawlers, but to bunkers generally.

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that the new price of British coal c.i.f. to Western European ports is from 20s. to 25s. higher than Polish coal; if he is satisfied that export markets will still be found; and will give assurance that no hidden export subsidy will be granted on exports of British coal.

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. I am advised that the suggestion in the first part of the Question is incorrect. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, and the third part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if his denial—[Interruption.]—his statement is reliable? The figures were taken from the "Economist," which is usually reliable. In the future when supplies become more available in Europe, shall we be able to sell our coal abroad?

Mr. Gaitskell: I advise the hon. Member not to take at face value all the statements which appear in the Press on matters of this kind. Sometimes they are designed, not necessarily wittingly, to influence these bargains.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the true figures are?

Mr. Gaitskell: Not without notice.

Opencast Mining (Farmland)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if it was with his authority that a statement was issued by his Ministry recently to the effect that land restored after opencast coal mining produced better corn crops than before requisitioning; where such improvement has been noticed; what were the yields concerned acre for acre; and whether the Ministry of Agriculture was consulted before the statement was issued.

Mr. Gaitskell: I assume that the Question refers to a report of a statement made at a Press conference by one of my regional officers which appeared in the "Western Mail" on 17th December, 1947. The statement said that over the areas on which opencast operations have been carried out, farmland is on the average improved. I agree that this statement goes too far and that in the absence of properly supervised measurements over a lengthy period, there can be no reliable evidence on this point.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Minister bear in mind the fact that while the example he quoted was the one to which I was referring, it is by no means unique, and representatives of his Ministry have made similar statements

elsewhere? Will he make it quite clear to them in future that if anybody is to express an opinion on this, it should be the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Gaitskell: I hope my answer will have done something to clarify the position.

Output Records (Incentives)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what incentives are now offered to miners to break coal output records.

Mr. Gaitskell: Payment by results which applies in the case of nearly all coal-face workers, is no doubt a financial inducement. But I am sure it is no less their appreciation of the nation's urgent need for increased production which inspires those who have performed these magnificent record-breaking feats.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that Slogger Williams whose daily output was the record one of 50 tons a shift, is living in two rooms with his wife and two children, and that the conditions under which the Scots miners are living are worse? Will he consider impressing upon Ministers the importance of housing in regard to miners' output?

Mr. Gaitskell: As my hon. Friend probably knows, miners' housing already has the highest possible priority.

Mr. Butcher: Could the Minister indicate whether increased food rations are a contributory factor in this?

Mr. Gaitskell: I should say they might play some part.

Domestic Supplies

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the total estimated tonnage of coal burnt for domestic purposes in 1938 and 1947; and the estimated percentage of dirt, stone and slate in the coal supplied for these purposes in the same two years.

Mr. Gaitskell: Separate figures for deliveries of coal to domestic consumers only are not available, but the tonnage of house coal—excluding miners' "concessionary" coal—delivered to domestic consumers and any premises using less than 100 tons per annum is estimated at


44.2 million tons in 1938. The corresponding figure for 1947 is 28.9 million tons. As to the second part of the Question, no such estimates can be made.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Is the Minister aware that in the Yorkshire area at any rate, coal is being sold with a dirt content of 80 per cent., which is 10 per cent. more than a year ago?

Mr. Gaitskell: I would not accept any such generalisation.

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power by how much, approximately, the total amount of coal used for domestic purposes for the whole country in 1947 would have had to be increased in order that the average household allotment would have equalled the average estimated consumption of coal, both free coal and coal purchased at a reduced price, per miner's household.

Mr. Gaitskell: Arithmetically, about 70 million tons. But the comparison suggested in the Question is highly misleading.

Mr. John McKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any general desire on the part of the public to cut down the customary allowance to miners, which has been allowed for generations? Is he aware that instead of getting more coal we would lose thousands of tons per day?

Mr. Gaitskell: I entirely agree. No such suggestion has been received from the general public and, as I have indicated in my answer, the circumstances are entirely different.

Technical Information (Publication)

Mr. Pitman: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether he will, through the exercise of his general powers of direction, ensure that servants of the National Coal Board are, in respect of publication of any work the subject matter of which is the technical subject of their specialisation, under conditions governing publication no less tavourable than those imposed on Crown servants;
(2) whether he will exercise his general powers of direction to ensure that employees of the National Coal Board shall have full liberty of publication in respect

of any work the subject matter of which is the technical subject of their specilisation.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have no evidence that servants of the National Coal Board are being unfavourably treated, and I do not propose to issue general directions to cover hypothetical contingencies.

Mr. Pitman: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable uneasiness in this matter of freedom to propagate progressive ideas, and that it is important that technicians in the coal industry should know that they are free to write and publish any progressive ideas which might occur to them? Will he see that that freedom is generally assured to all employees?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Member will be good enough to let me have the evidence suggested in the first part of his Question I will look into the matter.

Mr. Pitman: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in advance, make it known to them that they are free to do this? This is a question of technical work, and the knowledge that he is free to give the world, or this country, the benefits of his researches, is of fundamental importance to a technician.

Mr. Gaitskell: No one has suggested that the technicians concerned are not free to do so.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister tell us what the regulations now are or, without worrying about hypotheses, can he tell us that he will make sure what the regulations are?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly, I am quite prepared to make an investigation, but as far as I know there are no restrictions.

Mr. Scollan: Will my right hon. Friend make it known that there are no restrictions on the people doing this kind of thing?

Mr. Gaitskell: There may, of course, be circumstances in which the National Coal Board or, for that matter, any other undertaking, would wish to have some say on exactly what technical information was being published abroad by its employees. But I am prepared to make further inquiries to see exactly what is the position.

GREYHOUND RACING, GOSFORTH

Mr. John McKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a large percentage of the people living round about Gosforth are convinced that there would be no adverse effect upon the National Drive for Production if Greyhound Racing at Gosforth Stadium was permitted between the hours of 7 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. on Mondays and between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. on Saturdays; and will he grant permission for this to be done.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am aware that a number of residents have signed declarations to this effect, but the information before the Government does not support the view that it would be consistent with the urgent need of maximum production to permit mid-week or Saturday morning meetings in the area, and I regret that I am unable to comply with this request.

Mr. McKay: Is the Minister aware that thousands of letters and cards signed by people in the area have been received by me in recent months; is he further aware that the industries in that area are engaged on a five-day week and that in addition to the industrial workers, insurance managers and other kinds of professional people are signing these cards, because they think there is something unfair about it?

Mr. Ede: I am aware that cards have been distributed on Saturday afternoons and evenings at these tracks, and that a number of persons have received large quantities in consequence.

Mr. H. Hynd: Does the Home Secretary know the advice of the Ministry of Labour regional board in that area on this particular subject, and if not, will he inquire?

Mr. Ede: I know what their advice was and it is very satisfactory from the point of view that I am adopting.

Mr. Drayson: Could the Home Secretary say if trade union representatives in the area were invited to discussions on this matter?

Mr. Ede: I have received representations from trade union representatives as to the way in which the opening of grey-

hound tracks in mid-week and on Saturday mornings would crowd out workers or their return from work.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Home Secretary also aware that the less greyhound racing there is in this country, the better it will be for the national welfare?

LICENSED TAXICABS, METROPOLITAN AREA

Captain Crowder: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the numbers of taxicabs licensed in the Metropolitan area on the 31st December, 1947, and on the 31st December, 1939.

Mr. Ede: Five thousand, seven hundred and twenty in 1947, and 5,136 in 1939.

Captain Crowder: Would the Home Secretary consider issuing more licences because we are short of cabs in the Metropolitan area, and can he say how many new cabs have been licensed in this quarter?

Mr. Ede: I could only answer the second part of the question if it were put on the Paper. As far as I know there is no restriction on the number of licensed cabs. It will depend on the number of people who apply.

Mr. Baldwin: Before any more transport is available in the Metropolitan area to use petrol, will the Minister remember that the country districts want more petrol and more transport?

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS (LAPWINGS)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the large number of lapwings offered for sale during the winter months in London stores and at poulterers throughout the country; and whether, owing to the value of these birds to agriculture, he will take action to secure that the provisions of the Wild Birds Protection Acts are respected and this slaughter stopped.

Mr. Ede: I have no information to support the suggestion in the first part of


the Question. Last year I brought to the notice of the police the importance of doing all they can to enforce the provisions of the Wild Birds Protection Acts and Orders, with particular reference to the lapwing; and also brought the matter to the attention of those local authorities in whose areas the bird was not protected all the year round.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In connection with the denial made by the Home Secretary in regard to the first part of my Question, will he pay a visit to Whiteleys, Harrods and other big London stores and he will find that what I have said is correct? Will he also take a leaf out of the book of the Northern Ireland Government—which I do not like recommending—in which the arrangements for the protection of these birds and other wild birds are far better than is the case in this country?

Mr. Ede: I have a great deal to do in the mornings and I do not contemplate adding to my tasks by going round looking at the shops mentioned by the hon. Member. With regard to the second part of the question, since the Debate we had on the Adjournment at Easter, 1947, a number of local authorities have added these birds to their list of protections and only two counties, Herefordshire and Pembrokeshire, do not now protect the birds.

Mr. Rankin: When dealing with the lapwings would my right hon. Friend also direct the attention of the police to the very serious depletion in the numbers of the song-bird population in this country?

Mr. Ede: That is pretty generally known.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Would my right hon. Friend consider repeating this year the instructions which he sent out last year?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I know from the correspondence I have had that these instructions are still being carefully observed.

FIRE SERVICES, KENT (COST)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the great

increases in the costs of fire services in Herne Bay, Whitstable and the Bridge-Blean R.D.C. areas, consequent upon the operation of the Fire Services Act, 1947; whether he is aware of the protests of the local authorities concerned against the additional heavy burden on the rate-payers; and whether he will review the appropriate statutory provisions so that fire services may revert to county district councils as soon as possible.

Mr. Ede: As the hon. Member will appreciate, I have had to consider the scheme for the County of Kent as a whole. I have now had the final proposals of the County Council, which provide for some reduction of the numbers originally proposed. I am satisfied that the County Council has given careful consideration to the representations of the district councils and, subject to certain further modifications, I have decided to approve the scheme. I am not aware of any grounds on which I should be justified in asking Parliament to amend the Act which received the Royal Assent so recently as 31st July last.

Mr. Baker White: While I thank the Home Secretary for that answer, and not knowing, of course, what reductions will be involved, may I ask if he is aware that, excluding Government grants, the cost of the fire brigade in Herne Bay has risen from £868 before the war to £6,345, and in Whitstable from £500 to £5,220, and does he not think that some further revision should be made?

Mr. Ede: The scheme will be revised during the coming year, but I am bound to point out that the first figures given by the hon. Gentleman were for a period when the Fire Brigades Act, 1938, which had been passed in this House had not come into operation and any comparisons with prewar figures are largely vitiated by that fact.

Mr. Gerald Williams: Is the Minister aware that in Tunbridge Wells the rate will probably go up by 9d. under the same Bill, and can he explain the reason why the cost has gone up in view of the fact that there is all the auxiliary fire service equipment left over from the war?

Mr. Ede: So far as the first part of the hon. Member's Question is concerned,


what I said in answer to his hon. Friend applies. With regard to the question of equipment, the great cost of running a fire brigade is not the cost of the equipment but the wages and salaries of the personnel, the establishment of a 60-hour week, and the securing of reasonable conditions for the men, which mean an increase in cost.

CORONER'S INQUEST, CHICHESTER (PETITION)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the petition presented by many residents in the Chichester district with regard to the inquest held by the deputy coroner, Mr. H. S. Falconer, on 17th September, 1947, concerning the death of Mrs. Grace Elson; and whether he will order a fresh inquest to be held.

Mr. Ede: I have considered this petition, and have caused inquiries to be made, but I can find no ground for further action on my part, and the petitioners have been so informed. I have no authority to order a fresh inquest to be held.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable local perturbation over the conduct of these proceedings, and if he has no powers—as I appreciate—will he consider issuing a general instruction to coroners that they are not to sit on cases where they may be related, however remotely, to one of the parties concerned?

Mr. Ede: I am aware that the case has given rise to some comment in the district. I am informed that one of the persons, whose conduct might have been the subject of investigation by the coroner, was, in fact, the second cousin of the man's wife. The coroner assures me that he had not seen or spoken to this man for many years, and that the question of the relationship did not enter into his mind while the inquest was being held. It would be very difficult to lay down a table of consanguinity to be observed.

Mr. Assheton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of instituting an inquiry into the whole question of coroners' courts and their jurisdiction?

Mr. Ede: I am aware that there is a very great need for some consideration of the whole question by an appropriate body. I hope it may be possible to give some attention to the matter.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is yet in a position to state when the report of the Commission on the appointment and functions of magistrates is to be published.

Mr. Ede: I understand that the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace are making satisfactory progress and that it is hoped that the report may be ready for publication in a few months.

Mrs. Middleton: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House why this Report has been so unduly delayed?

Mr. Ede: I should not have thought this Royal Commission was proceeding with any delay. It has been appointed in the lifetime of this Parliament. It has heard a great deal of evidence, and is investigating a very intricate and delicate subject. I hope it will not be many months before the report is in our hands, and I think the Commission should be commended for the speed with which they have acted.

TATE GALLERY PICTURES (LANE BEQUEST)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Prime Minister whether in the interests of improving Anglo-Irish relations, he will explore at an early date the possibility of handing over to the Government of Eire the pictures at present housed in the Tate Gallery, and bequeathed by the late Sir Hugh Lane to the Dublin Municipal Gallery.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): The question of the Lane Pictures has been considered by successive Governments on various occasions during the past 20 years. I am not in a position to make any further statement on the matter.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a real sense


of grievance about this matter in Southern Ireland, and that the new Government, which is at present in the ballot box over there, would very greatly appreciate a gesture on our part.

The Prime Minister: A non-existent Government can have no views on anything.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the wilful destruction in Dublin of the statue of His Sacred Majesty William III; the recent beheading of the statue of General Gough, and the wilful destruction of the beautiful statue of George II, he will, before handing over these great works of art, demand some guarantee for their security?

Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that, although legally these pictures are our property, Sir Hugh Lane did intend them to go to Ireland, and has not Eire therefore got a real moral claim to them?

The Prime Minister: I do not intend to make any further statement on this matter.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Prime Minister aware that if we were in a position to hand over some coal to Ireland it would do much more to solidify the relations between the two countries?

Mr. McKay: Is the Prime Minister aware that a better relationship between Eire and this country could be promoted by inviting De Valera here to a public gathering to explain the need for unity in Ireland?

GENERAL MACARTHUR (VISIT)

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider inviting General MacArthur to visit this country, as did General Eisenhower, in order to express this nation's gratitude for his personal interest in our Forces during their service under him in Japan.

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are very appreciative of all that General MacArthur has done for our forces in Japan, and we should welcome a visit from this illustrious Allied Commander whenever his duties permit.

Mr. Teeling: Does the Prime Minister realise how much pleasure that will give to all those who took part with General MacArthur in his campaign in the Far East, and all who have watched with great interest what he has done in the recent past to develop the present position in Japan?

JAPANESE PEACE TREATY TALKS (HONG KONG)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Prime Minister why there was no representation of the Hong Kong Government at the Canberra talks on a Peace Treaty with Japan; and as the Foreign Office is not equipped to put Hong Kong's point of view, whether this Colony will be more adequately represented at any further peace talks.

The Prime Minister: The purpose of these talks was an informal exchange of views, on broad lines and without commitment, between Commonwealth Ministers. The interests of Hong Kong, as of the other Far Eastern colonial territories, were represented by the United Kingdom delegation. United Kingdom delegates at meetings of this kind do not represent any single Department of His Majesty's Government, and it is their normal responsibility to represent the interests of the Colonial Empire equally with those of the United Kingdom. In any further conferences concerned with the Japanese peace settlement we shall, naturally, continue to discharge this responsibility, but wherever it is desirable and feasible to do so we shall be glad to invite the Colonial Governments directly concerned to attach advisers to the United Kingdom delegation.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that at Canberra it was, in effect, the Foreign Office that was represented, and nothing else, and in view of the fact that the Embassies at Nanking and Tokyo do not necessarily always agree on economic problems with Hong Kong, will he make sure that the Colonial Office is properly represented at the next Conference?

The Prime Minister: Representation at these conferences is on behalf of His Majesty's Government as a whole. There is no distinction between Departments.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances responsible for the increasing amount of delegated legislation; the degree to which Parliamentary responsibility has been handed over to unelected persons, and the consequent effect of this on the accepted rights and privileges of Members of Parliament, and the people of this country.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Davies: May I, with respect, ask whether the Prime Minister has considered any part of the Question on the Order Paper? Has he considered the first part, or the second part or the third part; or is he determined to treat the consideration of Wales, as implied in this Question, with every possible discourtesy, and to treat with every possible discourtesy every Question that is asked about Wales?

The Prime Minister: There is no indication in the Question that it relates to Wales. I gathered that it dealt with delegated legislation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Arising out of that answer, did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that Socialism could only be brought about constitutionally, by the wide use of delegated legislation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very real difficulty in which hon. Members are placed in attempting to exercise control by this House over delegated legislation, arising from the fact that this House cannot amend any of the 2,800 Statutory Rules and Orders that go out every year?

The Prime Minister: This matter has been discussed by a Committee of this House in order that the House might obtain more control over delegated legislation. It is quite a mistake for hon. Members to think that delegated legislation is something which has come up within the last two years. I can recall this question coming up over the last 25 years.

Captain Crookshank: But will the Prime Minister look into the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which has sat during this Parliament, and see the recommendations made—about which nothing has been done to carry them out?

SCIENTISTS, DEFENCE DEPARTMENTS (LOYALTY TEST)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Prime Minister whether it is now proposed to require scientists engaged in Government Defence Departments to pass a loyalty test.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; but such steps are taken as are necessary to make sure that those who are entrusted with secret information of vital importance to the State are loyal to the State.

Mr. Haire: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent newspaper publicity indicating an extension of the powers of M.I.5 that might be applied in that direction, and would he do something to contradict them?

The Prime Minister: I have not received notice.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that no scientists, and indeed no civil servants, will be employed in any capacity if there is any possible suspicion that they could be guilty of un-American activities?

NATIONAL SERVICE (UNIVERSITY STUDENTS, RELEASE)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the arrangements for Class B release of students to attend universities in October, 1948.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Yes, Sir. It will be open to universities to apply for the early release of intending students who would normally be due for release under the age and service scheme between October and the end of the year. Details will be communicated to the universities at an early date.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we have a reassurance of what we have already heard on an earlier occasion—that those of these conscripts who take commissions shall not thereby, by way of any engagement or undertaking, be held longer than those who do not take commissions?

Mr. Isaacs: I would like to see that Question on the Order Paper before I give an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Directed Workers, Penryn and Falmouth

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Labour what action he intends to take in the Penryn and Falmouth area to prevent the refusal by employers on political grounds to accept applicants directed to them by his officers.

Mr. Isaacs: Such a case has not been reported to me.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an attempt in this area to introduce the worst methods of the Inquisition in that the chairman of the local Conservative Association has stated that in no circumstances will he employ anyone who does not quite fit in with his political views?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot add to my previous answer that such a case has not been reported to me.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not the case that in Falmouth the only question asked was whether a man was a member of the Communist Party or not, and can the Minister say why employers should not be allowed to impose the same ban as the T.U.C. are now trying to impose in regard to their officials?

Mr. Isaacs: The answer is that such a case has not been reported to me.

Prisoner-of-War Labour (Limestone Quarrying)

Mr. Drayson: asked the Minister of Labour if the provisions permitting German prisoners of war to remain in this country for agricultural purposes can be extended to include limestone Quarrying.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) on 27th January and to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) on 30th October, 1947, of which I am sending him copies.

Mr. Vane: Will the Minister say whether the word "agriculture" used in this sense includes horticulture and forestry?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I think it includes both.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove the Purchase Tax on industrial gloves in view of the necessity of these gloves to men carrying out certain work and the fact that they cannot be used for personal private wear.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): This matter was recently examined but it was found impossible to frame a satisfactory comprehensive definition for the purpose of an exempting Order.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter in view of the fact that these gloves are of a very heavy nature and cannot be used for any other purpose, and that men who are working on wires, ropes and hawsers must have them because of the nature of their work?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This matter has been considered, and the trade organisation concerned has been consulted in association with the Board of Trade. No proper definition could be found. The trade association is not in favour of having one that would not be complete.

Mr. John Lewis: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that industrial gloves which are used in factories, have to be replaced at frequent intervals owing to the fact that they wear out quickly and that they ought to be regarded as a consumable store?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have considered that. We would like, if we could, to help in this direction but there are difficulties, and I have indicated what they are.

Captain Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it has now been decided that Purchase Tax is to be charged on the refill service provided by the manufacturers of the Biro pen.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The service is the supply of replacements which are chargeable with the tax as articles of stationery.

Captain Crowder: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this change has only been made in the last few months, because the Biro pen has been on the market for nearly two years and we did


not have to pay tax until the latest advertisement which appeared in the Press last week?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that it was realised only recently that these refills could be put into position by the individual concerned. It was thought previously that the pen had to go back to the supplier. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does."] Other pens of a similar kind bear the tax, and there is no reason why this one, which is not a particularly good one, should be excepted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Langford-Holt: As the whole operation involves only an exchange of refill tubes, neither of which are new, is the Purchase Tax charged on the exchanged article, on the whole tube, or the ink inside?

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remark about this pen is quite wrong and that this firm is making a great contribution in the form of exports to all parts of the world? Would he withdraw his remark.

Captain Crowder: Would the Financial Secretary have a look at this matter again, because it is not true that individuals can refill the Biro pen? The pen has to go back to the makers.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is not so. Other pens have to bear this tax, and there is no reason why this particular pen should be advertised in this House one way or the other.

Sir William Darling: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to make a disparaging remark of that character—that the pen is not a good one—when it is common knowledge that it is doing a very large export business?

Foreign Travel (School Children)

Mr. Martin Lindsay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will put forward the provisional date of 1st May for continental visits to 1st April in order to permit school children to go abroad during the Easter holidays.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. Though I have sympathy with the suggestion, a date earlier than May is not practicable. Bilateral negotiations with a number of

countries have to be conducted, and we shall not be able to issue before March the list of countries to which travel will be allowed. After the list is issued a large number of detailed administrative arrangements will have to be made and these cannot be completed before Easter.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is the Financial Secretary aware that very large schemes for exchange visits are in preparation by bodies like the Boy Scouts' Association, and that it is desirable that the earliest possible information should be given, otherwise it will be impossible to carry out these schemes?

U.S.A. Credit Cheques (Prisoners of War)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a considerable number of dollars are at present frozen in this country in the form of credit cheques in the possession of German prisoners of war for work done in the United States; that a number of these prisoners remaining in Britain as civilian workers will be unable to cash these credit cheques, which are only cashable in Germany; that many of these men would prefer to cash these cheques in Britain and spend the money on unrationed consumer goods to send to their relatives in Germany, where the money will be, relatively, of less use to them; and if he will re-examine the question of cashing these cheques in sterling.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. These cheques are cashable in marks. If they were to be cashed in this country, we should only get marks in return, not dollars.

Mr. Driberg: Why could not some arrangement be made? Would not these dollars—which the prisoners do not want—be very useful to us, and would my right hon. Friend particularly consider the position of the prisoners referred to in the second part of my Question, who will not be able to cash them at all for years to come?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There are considerable quantities of these cheques and we have not got the dollars. We just cannot afford to take marks in exchange.

Mr. Driberg: Would not this mean dollars for us?

Tobacco Tokens (Ex-Service Pensioners)

Mr. Willis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider extending the concessions given to old age pensioners concerning tobacco, to those ex-Service pensioners who would normally be in receipt of an old age pension but who for various reasons only draw their Service pension.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No. Sir. I am afraid such an extension is not practicable.

Mr. Willis: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the difference between a pensioner drawing £2 a week as an old age pensioner and a pensioner drawing £2 a week as a Service pension? Why should there be discrimination?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The difference, which has often been explained in this House, is that an old age pensioner under the Act draws his pension at the Post Office counter and is therefore recognisable.

Mr. Willis: The Service pensioner also draws his pension through a Government Department.

Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many old people in this country between the ages of 65 and 70 who have stopped work and are not eligible to draw pension until they are 70, and does he not realise that they have no pension book and cannot draw allowances of tobacco?

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I ask the Financial Secretary whether he would make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine the whole question of ex-Service pensioners between now and the Budget?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is another question. We are here dealing only with tobacco tokens.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am only asking for representations.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any statement to make about the Business for today, especially in relation to the Leather Order, and also the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The right hon. Gentleman is moving far too far to the Left. The Leather Order is not today; it was yesterday and was finished. [Interruption.] Yes, I have been told something about it, but I could not quite follow it. The Leather Order was on the Order Paper last night, and was called in the ordinary way, but the Opposition did not function. Consequently, the affirmative Motion went through, as it was perfectly entitled to do, and there it is. I do not see what we can do about it. I did understand that some arrangement had been made whereby there could be a discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment tonight, in the ordinary way at the ordinary Adjournment time, and, if that is so, it is quite all right, but I could not accept responsibility for a situation in which, if the Opposition slips up and fails in its job, I am to be expected to put it right. I cannot do that.

Mr. Eden: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman takes the matter in that way. I received an intimation through the usual channels that the Government were willing that a discussion should take place, and I asked my question in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make an answer. Since he has adopted this tone, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the reason why no Member of the Opposition got up last night was because the Minister indicated that he had a statement to make?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that that is disputed. If, of course, the time for the Motion for the Adjournment comes somewhat earlier tonight, that will be all right, and it certainly will leave greater time. I really must not be held responsible, however, for a situation in which, if the Opposition Member is not there and did not rise promptly in his place when the matter was called, I should be expected to give facilities to put the matter right.

Mr. Eden: I was not holding the right hon. Gentleman responsible for anything, but merely asking a question, in accordance with the arrangements through the usual channels, and I think he might have been a little more courteous in his reply.

Mr. Morrison: The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 9th February.—A Debate will take place on the National Health Service


on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland; and consideration of the Motion to approve the draft National Health Service (Scotland) (Superannuation) Regulations.
Tuesday, 10th February, and Wednesday, 11th February.—Second Reading of the Gas Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday, 12th February.—Supply (1st allotted Day)—Motion to move Mr. SPEAKER out of the Chair, to which an Amendment will be proposed by the Opposition relating to the Statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices. This day is being arranged at the request of the Opposition under the new Supply Standing Order.
Friday, 13th February.—Report and Third Reading of the Cinematograph Films Bill; and, if there is time, further progress will be made with the Police Pensions Bill and the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) Bill.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps I might say about Thursday's Business that it is to enable a Debate to take place on the Government White Paper. As regards Monday, may I ask a question? I understand that the Government are allocating time for that Debate, and that it will not come out of our time. May I put this point to the Leader of the House? As I understand it, the doctors are now voting in accordance with the decision which this House took, and most of them will probably have voted. Would it not be wise and more appropriate if we held our discussion after the voting had been concluded?

Mr. Morrison: It is a fair point of argument, and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the voting is in process. I believe it actually started last week-end, and it may be that by Monday it will be well on the way. There was a lot to be said for having the Debate earlier, if it could have been arranged, but that could not be done. I do not see that there is really any objection to taking this on Monday because of that consideration. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a Debate which was not arranged at the request of the Opposition; that the pressure was rather from the Government side of the House,

and that, therefore, it is a day which should come out of Government time.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Could the Leader of the House say when there will be a Debate on the nationalised civil aviation services, in view of the great losses which have been incurred and the great burden on the taxpayers?

Mr. Morrison: I did intimate that we were agreeable that there should be such a Debate, but discussions may take place through the usual channels, because we must arrange how, when, and in what form we are to debate the socialised industries. There is much good will on the matter, and I understand that the usual channels are expecting that a settlement may be reached.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend tell me if he would give an early opportunity for the House to discuss the Colonies, especially in relation to the Foreign affairs Debate which we had recently, and in which we discussed the relationship of the Colonies to Western Union, because I believe that this House has too few opportunities to discuss the Colonies?

Mr. Morrison: It all depends what is arranged on the Supply Day in regard to the Colonies, but I do not think we could make a special time, especially in view of the fact that the Western countries of Europe and the situation there were so recently discussed.

Mr. Henry Strauss: May I ask a question regarding Monday's Debate? It seems probable that both the Minister and other speakers, of various views, may wish to refer to the meetings between the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health and the Negotiating Committee of the medical profession. The question I want to put is this—Was any shorthand note taken of those proceedings, and, if the answer is "yes," will a transcript be made available to hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Morrison: To be quite frank, I do not know whether a shorthand note was taken or not, but I am afraid it would be impracticable to provide such a note between now and the Debate.

Mr. Nally: May I call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the Motion stand-


ing in my name and the names of many of my hon. Friends on the subject of Betting and Gambling?
[That this House deplores the great anomalies of existing law in relation to betting and gambling of all kinds, regards with anxiety the uncontrolled growth in recent years of the gambling industry as particularly evidenced by the football pools, observes with alarm the absence of adequate protection for the public against profiteering and malpractices, and urges His Majesty's Government to proceed at once with a detailed investigation of the whole subject having special regard to the possible use of gambling revenues for useful social purposes such as the encouragement of British amateur and professional sport, and to introduce as soon as possible legislation designed to secure the reorganisation of betting and gambling on commonsense lines.]
In view of the fact that there is widespread public interest among people of all points of view as to the general development of the betting and gambling industry, will my right hon. Friend try to provide time for a Debate on this Motion?

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry, but I am afraid I do not see the possibility at the moment of providing special time for a Debate on that Motion.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in view of the Debate before Christmas about the Members' Fund, he has any idea when legislation will be introduced?

Mr. Morrison: The Government have taken proper note of the Debate which took place a little while ago. The matter is actively under consideration, and, if possible, we will present a Bill to the House in accordance with what I conceive to be the wishes of the House on that matter.

Mr. George Thomas: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the intention of the Government to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Resolutions of U.N.E.S.C.O., in view of the importance of keeping public opinion in this country informed on these matters?

Mr. Morrison: I do not see any possibility of providing special facilities, though the matter could be discussed on the Education Estimates.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Debate on Monday will be wide enough to cover the negotiations between the Minister of Health and the dentists, which have also broken down?

Mr. Morrison: A Motion is on the Paper; it is for Mr. Speaker to rule. My own impression is that it will be wide enough to cover that point.

Mr. Keeling: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for War just before Christmas that there is nothing to prevent the House from discussing the White Paper on land for the Services if it so desires, will the Leader of the House say whether the Government intend to put down a Motion to approve the White Paper?

Mr. Morrison: My impression was that there was a fair amount of Debate on the War Damage Bill. We had not contemplated putting down a special Motion on this point. I thought that we had fairly reasonably, although not fully, I agree, covered that ground.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State for War intervened in that Debate to make a statement which did not deal with what was contained in the Bill, and that the Debate on the subject was expressly reserved for a future occasion. In view of that, will not he provide an opportunity for debating the White Paper?

Mr. Morrison: I had better look it up.

Mr. Janner: In view of the situation which has risen in regard to the differences between the United Nations Commission on Palestine and His Majesty's Government and the difficulty of the position, will my right hon. Friend give the House every opportunity to discuss that matter, because it is also urgent.

Mr. Morrison: I hardly think that to be reasonable. It was only recently that the House had a special two days' Debate on Palestine.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

ROYAL NAVY (TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT)

Major Vernon: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to technical equipment, and move a Resolution.

EXPORT TARGET, 1948

Mr. Hollis: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the 1948 export target, and move a Resolution.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITMENT)

Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to recruitment for the Territorial Army, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL AIR FORCE (TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING)

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall call attention to the importance of technical education and training in the Royal Air Force, and move a Resolution.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (OPERATIONS)

Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply

on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the operations of the National Coal Board, and move a Resolution.

HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITIES)

Mr. Gallacher: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the position of housing, and the paralysing effect on local authorities of the increase in the interest rate, and move a Resolution.

ARMY PENSION RATES

Sir William Darling: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, I shall call attention to the inadequacy of the present rates of Service disability pensions in view of the steadily increasing cost of living, and move a Resolution.

AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (RECRUITING)

Mr. Price-White: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates, I shall draw attention to recruiting for the Auxiliary Air Force, and move a Resolution.

ROYAL NAVY (EDUCATIONAL SERVICES)

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to give notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, I shall call attention to the Navy's educational services, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

3.49 P.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments in Clause 7, page 5, line 32, Clause 8, page 5, lines 39 and 42, page 6, line 6, Clause 9, page 7, lines 35, 37 and 48, Clause 10, page 8, lines 16 and 28, and of the new Clauses (Compensation for injurious affection) and (Compensation for loss pending rehabilitation), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Peake, and of the Amendment in Clause 11, page 9, line 30, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Turton.
I can forgo my arguments for moving this Motion if the Financial Secretary will indicate by a movement of his head whether he intends to accept it.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): We see no reason why we should recommit, but, as the request has come from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, we are very willing to accept this Motion, if it will save the time of a long discussion, in order that we may get on with the work.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 7.—(Amount of rental compensation for requisitioned land.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert:
unless the land is land to which Section eighty of the said Act of 1947 applies.
The Committee may recall that under Clause 7 of the Bill, in assessing the rental compensation which will be paid

the development values are excluded. We had some discussion upon that in the earlier stages in Committee and arguments were put forward with regard to the matter, but I think it was overlooked by the Solicitor-General in drafting the Bill that, in fact, under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 there is still one category of land—which we who were on that Committee commonly referred to as ripe land—where the owner would have no claim on the £300 million created under the Town and Country Planning Act for compensation for loss of development value.
If this Subsection of this Bill operates to deprive the owner of ripe land coming within Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act of the element in rental compensation due to development value, it is doing him an injustice in that he is automatically deprived by the Town and Country Planning Act—because he comes within Section 80—of any claim on the £300 million fund. Therefore, although this is rather a technical Amendment it is one of some importance. I move this Amendment in the hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been able to follow the arguments I have endeavoured to put and that he will except from the general application of this Clause which eliminates the development values from the rental compensation, this particular class, namely, those who are owners of ripe land coming within Section 80. If this Amendment is accepted it will do no more than to bring this part of the Bill into line with the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I am sorry I did not hear the whole of the arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), but I have only just come from another place where I had to be. I think I know the gist of the arguments he has presented to the Committee. The object of his Amendment is to remove what he conceives to be an inconsistency between Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act and Clause 7 of this Pill. My answer is this: I think the Amendment is based on a slight misconception of the effect of Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act as taken in conjuction with Clause 7 of this Bill.
If the hon. and learned Member will look more closely at it—I am not suggesting that he has not already looked closely at it—I think he will find the position is this: Clause 7 imposes this restriction, if one looks at Subsection (2, b), in relation to land where the requisition is carried out before the appointed day for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act. The two provisions, therefore—Subsection (2, b) of Clause 7 and Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act—are really not dealing with the same period. Section 80 is dealing with the case where application is made for a certificate after the appointed day for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Of course, until the appointed day one does not really know what the situation will be. Section 80 deals with dead-ripe land and with the case of a person who is able after the appointed day to satisfy the conditions set out under the Section, that is, to establish that there was the requisite building contract, or by-law application, and that the development value is attributable to the particular development expected to accrue.
The Clause and the Section are not dealing with the same situation. One envisages a state before the appointed day and the other a state after the appointed day. The hon. an learned Gentleman will no doubt ask what will be the position in the case of land which had been requisitioned before the appointed day but which remains under requisition at the time of the appointed day and thereafter. In the case of land of this sort there is nothing at all to prevent the owner of that requisitioned land from asking for Section 80 treatment and, if the appropriate conditions are shown to exist, Section 80 treatment can be given.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have been following the arguments of the Solicitor-General. Surely in that case he will get a lower rate because of the elimination of the development value to which he is still entitled if he comes under Section 80?

The Solicitor-General: As from the appointed day his position under Section 80 will be exactly the same. That is the position of the land which remains under requisition, but if the land does not remain under requisition but is com-

pulsorily acquired, he will still not suffer because, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at Section 51 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, he will see that the compensation that he gets on compulsory acquisition will include and reflect that development value. Therefore, the inconsistency upon which the argument is based does not exist at all. The Section and the Clause are dealing with different states of affairs and where the owner of the land finds himself still subject to the requisition when the appointed day comes, he can ask for Section 80 treatment. For these reasons I would submit that this Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman was not here for the whole of my argument which I put very shortly. That may account for the fact that he has not met my point and I would like to put it quite shortly to him. Under Clause 7 of this Bill we are dealing with rental compensation. Under Clause 7 (2, b) we deduct from the rental compensation the development value of the land—the element due to the development value of the land. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with that. It is quite true that that Subsection applies only where possession was taken before the appointed day; but the appointed day may be quite soon, and even before this Bill becomes an Act. Where after the appointed day the owner of the land brings himself within Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act, the owner has no claim on the £300 million fund, although he is entitled to his development value.
4.0 p.m.
That is the effect, broadly, of coming within Section 80 of the 1947 Act, but what we are concerned with here is the question: What is the effect so far as rental compensation is concerned upon the man who, after the appointed day, brings his requisitioned land within the framework of Section 80 of the 1947 Measure? This is the point with which the hon. and learned Gentleman did not deal. My view is that, as this Clause now stands, that particular owner who, on the hypothesis I have put and the hon. and learned Gentleman has put, brings his property within Section 80, and is entitled to the development value, not having to pay anything in respect of


that, but with no claim upon the £300 million fund, will be entitled only to get under this Bill rental compensation which ignores the development values which still remain to him. I think that is wrong.
Where I think the hon. and learned Gentleman missed the point is, that, in relating this Bill to Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act, I am dealing solely with the question of rental compensation. If under the Town and Country Planning Act, by which we take away from owners the development values that attach to their land, we leave this particular category who retain their development values, then I contend that, when their property is requisitioned before the appointed day under the Town and Country Planning Act, and when that requisition carries on after the appointed day, and they bring themselves within Section 80, there is no moral ground at all for paying for that particular limited category a rent which deducts in the assessment of the rent any element due to development values. I think it is a point which is worthy of careful consideration. I hope I have made it clear and that the hon. and learned Gentleman, even if he cannot accept the Amendment today, will say that he will look into it very carefully indeed, so as to bring this Clause of the Bill into line with the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. Scollan: I am not at all clear what the hon. and learned Gentleman means, although I am trying to follow his argument. Suppose development took place after requisition, is he arguing that that should be taken into account? Suppose development took place prior to requisition, would it not increase the rental charge?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am afraid I have not made my point clear to the hon. Member. I am dealing only with the particular category who are specifically provided for in Section 80 of the Town and Country Planning Act. That category does not depend upon whether development has, in fact, at that moment taken place. The hon. Member will, perhaps, recollect that the marginal note of that Section is, "Land ripe for development before the appointed day." It is the ripeness of the land for development—and the various other conditions in the Section to which I need not refer—which

brings that particular land quite out of the ordinary sphere of the Town and Country Planning Act. The owner of that land does not have to pay the sum for development, but also he is not entitled to any compensation out of the £300 million fund. He is taken out of the scope of that. That is why I say that, in assessing the rental compensation of requisitioned land that comes within Section 80, it is not right to take from that rental compensation the element due to development value.

The Solicitor-General: I certainly appreciate the point the hon. and learned Gentleman makes, and will bear in mind what he says. This Section 80 treatment relates to a particularly narrow category of cases; that is to say, there must be a building contract or by-law submission, and the development value must be mainly attributable to the prospect of carrying out of the building, and there must be the granting of a certificate. It is in that narrow category of case that what one can describe virtually as a special bargain comes into operation. The owner of the land forgoes his claim upon the £300 million fund, but he is allowed to carry out his development free of the development charge. That is the case where a certificate is granted after the appointed day.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking is this. He is claiming that the owner of the land, before he is qualified by obtaining the certificate, and before any development has been carried out—should be treated more generously, in the matter of the rental compensation that he gets in respect of requisitioned land, than other owners of requisitioned land. There is, I respectfully submit, no justification for that. What case can be made for preferential treatment in the case of that owner? If he qualifies for his certificate and gets his special Section 80 treatment, a particular bargain—the counter-cancelling of his claim on the £300 million fund and his liability to development charge—operates in relation to him. But surely there can be no claim in the case of that owner, before the development has taken place which is envisaged in Section 80, to any special consideration in the matter of the rental compensation he receives.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks what ground is


there for giving more generous treatment to the land which comes within Section 80 than to the ordinary class of owner whose land is requisitioned. The answer to that, I should have thought, is quite simple. First of all, from the ordinary class of owner whose land was requisitioned we deduct from the rental compensation—because he loses the development value—all element of rent which is due to development possibilities. We deduct that from the general class. That particular class of individual has his claim against the £300 million fund. We are paying him, having taken into account the effect of the Town and Country Planning Act, a lower rent than his land would normally fetch in the open market if it had development value. That is what Clause 7 (2, b) provides. That is all right in the ordinary class of case. The owner claims against the £300 million fund.
We have the anomaly, which the Amendment is seeking to correct, of the case of a man who brings his land within Section 80, who gets a certificate in due course under the Section because he cannot claim against the £300 million fund, who, when he gets the land back, executes development without paying development charge, but who, pending getting back his land, has not had the development value taken away from him by the Town and Country Planning Act. We have taken from him that element of rent attributable to the development value, as in the case of the other class; but unlike owners in the other class, he will not have the right of claiming compensation for that land from the £300 million fund. That is the point. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks, Why should he have different treatment? My submission is that the answer is obvious—because the other general class has this claim against the £300 million fund.
So far as the Town and Country Planning Act itself is concerned, the development charge is balanced against claim on the fund. Under this Bill, however, if a man's land is requisitioned, he is adversely affected and differently treated from the general class of case. While he is put in the general class for the purposes of this Bill, he has still got his development value and he gets no compensation for getting a lower rent, that is, the rent which would normally operate,

and which would be regarded as a fair rent. That is the point. I do not want to press the Solicitor-General further upon this. I am quite certain that if he says he will give it very careful and detailed consideration—there is, in my opinion, real substance in the point—he will so do, and I should be quite willing not to take up further time, and to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I am not giving any sort of promise or undertaking beyond the promise I am always ready to give, namely, to consider, as I would quite independently of any promise, what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry. I will certainly do that. I must confess that at the moment I am not convinced by the argument, and beyond saying that I will read what the hon. and learned Member has said, I am not to be taken as holding out any sort of hope that we can do anything in the direction he has indicated.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope that prolonged study will induce the Solicitor-General to adopt a different attitude. Relying on the attention which I know he will give to the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Maxima for rental compensation.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 39, to leave out Subsection (1).
This Amendment relates to the same matter as the two following Amendments, which we might perhaps discuss at the same time: in line 42, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 43; and in page 6, line 6, leave out from the beginning to the end of the Clause.
This matter was not specifically raised by a previous Amendment during Committee, but on looking at the question my right hon. Friends and I are by no means satisfied that, when the Government have property-under requisition it is fair and proper to obtain for themselves as tenants the protection given by the Rent Restrictions Acts. If these Amendments were embodied in this Clause that protection would no longer be given. Our case, shortly, is that the Rent Restrictions Acts


are devised for the protection of the tenants of small and medium sized houses. They do not apply to houses in excess of a certain rateable value. At the present time the Government, by means of requisitioning orders, are in possession of very large numbers of small and medium-sized houses. We say the time has come when the Government should pay fair value by way of compensation for the continued occupation of this form of property.
Many small houses which are not the subject of tenancies at all at present, and are occupied by their owners, will, under the Clause as drafted, be regarded as rent restricted for the purpose of compensation. There are many houses to which the Rent Restrictions Acts would apply were they to be let, although occupied by the owners at the present time. Take, for example, a man who went to the war in 1939, whose house was let during his absence to a tenant, and who has now returned and regained possession. Although he is an owner-occupier, were the Government now to requisition his house he could not obtain any benefit by way of increased compensation under this Clause. He would be tied down to the rent permitted under the Rent Restrictions Acts, which was, very likely, fixed in the year 1939. We do not think this is a tolerable position, and if the law were amended as we suggest the Government would have much greater inducement to relinquish, as they should do, at the earliest possible moment possession of small and medium sized houses which they hold under requisition. We, therefore, say that these Amendments should be embodied in the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that this principle was discussed previously in Committee. It was discussed fully, and the reason why it could not be accepted was agreed to by hon. Members opposite, because the arguments put forward for its non-acceptance were so reasonable that there could be no doubt that the Government were making the right approach. The reason is that with rent restricted property it would be unfair if the Government had to pay more by way of rental than an ordinary tenant, supposing he came into possession. If the house has not been let before, obviously it is not rent restricted; no standard rent applies, and until the house is let no standard rent

is laid down. Supposing by some chance a Government Department decided to requisition the house of an owner-occupier—it is unlikely; we are not requisitioning such houses if we can help it; we do not want to take occupied houses—then unless a standard rent had previously been fixed, it would not come under this Subsection.
In the case of the returning soldier who has regained possession of his house which has attracted to itself a standard rent, obviously if the house were taken it would come within the Rent Restrictions Acts, and the standard rent would apply. Were the Government to take that house—although they have no desire to do so; and here I gather we are dealing with a completely theoretical case—the standard rent would apply, and the owner would get his rent only according to the formula laid down—on the rateable value, depending on the location, either here, in the Provinces, or in Scotland. We cannot accept this Amendment. In the case of rent restricted property which is requisitioned, it would mean that the ceiling for rental compensation would be 160 per cent. of 1939 values, and we consider that would not be right or proper.

Mr. Scollan: I was very surprised at the reply given by the Financial Secretary, that he did not think it fair that the Government should pay more than the ordinary tenant who was getting the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I entirely disagree. The Government ought to pay more. The Rent Restrictions Acts, with the protection given to the tenant, were not enacted because the Government wanted to use the property. That protection was given to ordinary tenants because it was recognised that, while the properties did not increase in value—except scarcity value—the wages and conditions of those who had to use them had to be protected. When such property is taken out of that category altogether and put in the open market for some other purpose, the Government have no right to say to the owner, "Every other property-owner has a right to make something, or to take the market value, but because of your peculiar circumstances you have no right to do so." The Government cannot differentiate between the two. If a Government Department takes over such property, then obviously for everything which the


Department takes over besides the property it pays the market value and compensation accordingly. It is wholly wrong to say that this should be applied in the case of the Government as in the case of the owner-occupier.

Mr. Hollis: The case which has been made out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) is an overwhelming one. I am sure that my constituents will not be satisfied with the defence the right hon. Gentleman has put up for this Clause. His argument was that this is a purely hypothetical contention, because the Government had no intention of taking over houses. If that were the firm intention of the Government, there would appear to be no purpose in having this Clause at all one way or the other. The reason why we cannot remain satisfied for one second with that assurance, is because the whole policy of the Government on this, as on other matters, has been a shifting policy. My constituents have been relying for two years on the promise of the Home Secretary, which has now proved to be of no effect, and therefore the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the intention of the Government to take over property cannot have much effect on us. We are not doubting his good faith for one moment, but the whole policy has clearly got so completely out of the control of the Government that we can have no assurance that they will not do these things in a very short time. That being so, we are entitled to ask the Government to deal with this matter on its intrinsic merits, and if they do so, the contention of my right hon. Friend appears to be unanswerable.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I wish to carry the argument of the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) one stage further. He rightly pointed out that the object of the Rent Restrictions Acts was to protect the tenant. In the class of cases we are now considering, the houses have not so far come within the Rent Restrictions Acts, because in almost every case they have been occupied by the owners or by friends of the owners. Far from protecting the owner, the Government are now turning him out of his house against his will. It seems that in

these circumstances he is entitled to some kind of special treatment. That is why there should be some differentiation between the rent paid by the Government, as compared with the rent paid by the normal occupier.

Mr. Charles Williams: It is very easy for the Treasury to get sympathy by asking why the Government should not take advantage of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and why they should be expected to pay more rent than anyone else. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), the object of the Rent Restrictions Acts is to protect the ordinary individual who is unable to acquire a house for himself. The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge of any case where this sort of thing has happened, but that does not mean that it will not happen in the near future. The object of this Amendment is to discourage the Government from going into requisitioning wholesale. It is quite obvious that both sides of the Committee are strongly against the Government in this matter, and feel that the Government are using their powers of requisitioning in a very unfair way, especially in the case of the owner-occupier. Under this Clause, the Government can turn a man out of his house, and probably out of his occupation at the same time. It is inflicting a very great hardship on the individual.
Surely, we can ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter again in the sense of common fairness. I have no doubt that he will get his dumb legions to support him in the event of this Amendment being pressed to a Division—that is always done by this Government. The fact remains that the Government have been more strongly condemned from their own side of the Committee than by anyone else. In these circumstances, I think that we can ask the Government to accept the Amendment, and then, if there is any further difficulty, adjustments can be made in another place. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not given way, in view of the fact that the whole argument has been against the Government in this matter.

Mr. Assheton: Perhaps I may be allowed to put one or two points which will persuade the right hon. Gentleman to modify his views on this


matter. This is a matter of fairness. I have always found that the right hon. Gentleman is extremely fair in his approach to problems, although he is not always able to concede all that he would like. The right hon. Gentleman argues that the Government should be treated in the same way as anyone else, and that if they are to have these properties, they should pay no more rent than the ordinary tenant. I would point out that the local authorities are already exempted as property owners from the Rent Restrictions Acts. A local authority can let property for what they like, and many local authorities have already raised their rents to the great chagrin of landlords in the neighbourhood. If the right hon. Gentleman argues that the Government should be treated in the same way as other people, then I suggest that local authorities should also be treated in the same way as the private landlord.
4.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be unfair for the Government to pay more than a private tenant. I dispute that. Let us take the case of two houses in the same road. The first house has never been let, and is entirely free from the Rent Restrictions Acts. The first letting of that house would in fact establish the standard rent. Let us suppose that house No. 2 was let before the war at, perhaps, a low rental. Along come the local authority, and they pay an entirely different rent for these two houses which are identical in every way—they have the same accommodation, the same situation and the same amenities. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that fair. I understand the pressure that he is under to do his best financially for the Government, but he also represents the interests of the community at large, and it is not fair to continue to maintain the position which he has maintained hitherto.
Let us consider the case of the owner-occupier whose house has been requisitioned; a house which, although owner-occupied, has a standard rent. It may have been let on a previous occasion at a very low rental—possibly some 40 years ago—of 2s. or 3s. a week. The fact that there is an owner-occupier does not make any difference—the standard rent will be 2s. 6d.

Mr. Walker: Plus 40 percent.

Mr. Assheton: It was possible to make an increase of 40 per cent. and that was done in some cases, but not in others—but adding 40 per cent, to 2s. 6d. makes little difference. The owner-occupier of that house, if it has not been requisitioned, is free to sell it in the open market, and if he can get some one who wants immediate possession he will get a high market value for it. But if he lets it, he will have to do so for 2s. 6d. plus 40 per cent. It is clear that the owner-occupier will be greatly damnified if his property is requisitioned, and he is only paid 2s. 6d. or 3s. 6d. a week rent.
I suggest that the Financial Secretary should think about this matter again. It is not so simple as he may have been led to believe. There are all these complications which have been pointed out. In view of the tone of the discussion on both sides of the Committee, it is not possible for me to do anything but urge the House to accept the Amendment. We propose to divide the Committee on the issue, unless the Financial Secretary is able to modify his view.

Mr. Turton: The Financial Secretary has heard our arguments very reasonably put. Why is it that under this Clause, the Government are trying to give an increase to an owner of a large house of 60 per cent., while the man who owns a small house will not get any increase? It is really one law for the rich and one for the poor. We are used to that from this Government; we have had case after case—we had it on the Purchase Tax. If an owner-occupier is driven out of his house and he has to get another, he will not get one unless he is prepared to pay at least 60 per cent. increase, or a very high market price to obtain vacant possession. The Financial Secretary's argument has been, "Ah, if it was not requisitioned, the man could only get the standard rent." That is not true. He could also get possession by applying to a county court, if he wanted the house for himself. That is far more valuable to any man today than mere rent.
I have a great sympathy for a large number of owner-occupiers who have been driven out of their houses which they were occupying at the date of requisition. Frequently, men in the Services have hoped to come back to a house that was let, and have found on


demobilisation a Government Department in occupation. The Financial Secretary says in effect to them, "We are not going to bother with you. The standard rent is enough for you." I do not think that that is treating this argument with the justice it deserves. I hope that he will at least reconsider the matter and try to see that rent-restricted property really does not affect the matter. What is affecting the matter is the hardship to the individual—a hardship which is as great to a man who owns a large house as to a man who owns a small house. The hardship is even greater on the owner-occupier, and the small house owner-occupier is getting a far lower standard of compensation. I do not think that is just.

Mr. McKie: I intervene to urge the Financial Secretary to say something by way of reply to the three excellent points put to him by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton). The Committee is under an obligation to the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) for having brought this discussion to a head. Had it not been for his strong speech of condemnation of the Government, this matter might not have gone against them so badly as it is doing. As a Scottish rural Member, I associate myself with what he has said. My constituency has suffered very considerably from the requisitioning of land. I should be out of Order if I went into that now, but it has suffered and is still suffering from indecision of the Government in making up their mind as to their future policy with regard to requisitioning in general.
I feel very strongly indeed about this point. In my opinion, the Government have gone too far in this Subsection. The right hon. Gentleman held out as a reason why we should not divide on this Subsection that it was not the intention of the Government to make any unfair use of the powers which it will confer upon them if it is allowed to be incorporated in the Bill. That is all very well, but there is no saying what this Government or any succeeding Government may not be driven to do, owing to the exigencies of a future situation. I thought that I saw the right hon. Gentleman look at me as if he agreed with me on that point; at all events, the hon. Member for Western Renfrew agrees with me.
I think that this is excessively mean. I join wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman in that. It is mean of the present Socialist Administration to take advantage of previous legislation, which is not intended to apply to this kind of situation, and to do something which will operate very unfairly, if advantage is taken of this Subsection, on many people. I make the hon. Member for Western Renfrew a present of that; but I am not only thinking of one section of the community as he probably is. I am concerned for all sections. I am, therefore, more fair-minded than he is in that respect. I do not want to see this Subsection operate unfairly with regard to any premises or land that may be requisitioned. The right hon. Gentleman ought to do something about this.
There is one point in particular which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London which certainly deserves an answer. That is: Why are the Government going to do something which the local authorities are not permitted to do? They are not permitted to take advantage of the Rent Restrictions Acts when dealing with tenants, so why should the great Socialist central executive propose to act in this rather mean, underhand and unfair manner. I should have thought it would have been a great opportunity for a Left Wing Socialist executive to show that once in a while, they could do the generous thing and take the open-minded view. Certainly they should do it in this case because it will result in hardship to many people if they do not.
I only wish there were a bigger attendance on the other side of the Committee because I feel sure many more pleas like the one we have heard would be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman from his own supporters. There are only nine Members on the Government Benches at the moment, which is rather disgraceful when a matter affecting so many people in the community is being considered.

Mr. Scollan: How many are on the Opposition side?

Mr. McKie: We would have had many more speeches like that from the hon. Member for Western Renfrew and the Government would have been placed in an embarrassing position.

Mr. Scollan: Mr. Scollan rose—

Mr. McKie: I am not giving way. We are in Committee and the hon. Gentleman can make another speech if he so desires. I hope that when the Division bells ring hon. Members opposite will not troop in a docile manner into the Division Lobby but that they will inquire from the Whips what they are voting about, and then we shall have a strong muster indeed in the Opposition Lobby, with the Government just struggling home. I shall have great pleasure in resisting the right hon. Gentleman by voting for this Amendment.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That"—

Mr. Walker: Mr. Walker rose—

Mr. McKie: There is an hon. Member who wishes to address the Committee.

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to leave the conduct of the Debate to the Chair. He must forgive me for saying that he took up some time and was not himself very relevant.

Mr. Walker: This is a question upon which we have to be particularly careful.

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order. With great respect, Major Milner, you said in your wisdom that I had not been relevant, but if I was not relevant, I was not interrupted by you. I feel that I was not any more irrelevant to the issue before the Committee than any other Member who spoke. That comment seems to me to be rather harsh.

The Chairman: It is a matter of opinion, and I should be sorry to be unduly harsh, but on future occasions it would, no doubt, be better if I intervened earlier.

Mr. Walker: I was saying that this is a matter about which we ought to be very careful in coming to a decision. It is a matter of requisitioning property and turning people out of their homes. It is also a matter of what is the correct and honest compensation that has to be paid. We are all well aware that in these days it is a most serious thing even for a Government to requisition property and to turn what may be an owner-occupier out of his household and leave him with only the hope of certain compensations. We all know how difficult it is when a man loses the tenancy or ownership of his home to find a place in which to live.
I am thinking of the position of the owner-occupier of a house. He may have bought his house years ago in circumstances such as were mentioned by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton), but what he paid for it 20 or 30 years ago would not be comparable with the price he would have to pay at the present time.
I remember going into an auction room about 20 years ago when some property was put up for sale. I bought a couple of fine houses for £420. Supposing I was living in one of these houses today and the Government came along and wanted to requisition that property. What compensation would I get? Would I be paid compensation on the basis of what I paid for that property those years ago, or would the compensation be comparable to what I would get for the property if it were vacant and put up for auction at the present moment? These are questions which people are asking. The Government are proposing that the amount of compensation should not exceed the permissible rent. That on the face of it might be perfectly just, but, human nature being what it is, the man who owns land will say "Instead of being worth £400 as it was 25 years ago, it may well be worth £3,000 today, and, therefore, my just claim for compensation is within the area of that exceedingly large amount."

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman appears not to be dealing with the rental value, which is the subject of this Amendment, but with the capital value.

Mr. Walker: I will turn to the rental value. The rental value is the exceedingly large amount that has to be paid for the property. It would be much larger than it was many years ago. At any rate, I feel that whilst there may be a good deal of warranty for the Government to come along and say that they will requisition land and pay compensation with regard to the permissible rent, at the same time they ought to give a little more percentage than the permissible rent of years ago and take into consideration the value of the property as it stands at the present moment. Whilst opposing the Amendment, I ask the Government to look into the matter again and see if they cannot do better than they are proposing to do.

Mr. C. Williams: Are the Government not going to reply to the devastating


attack from one of their own supporters? The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) by his own illustration has shown that the Government are trying to do the little man and others as well out of fair compensation. That is most disgraceful on the part of the Government, and it has been exposed by their own supporters. The right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench with a smarmy look is proposing to do nothing about it. I am not surprised, for the right hon. Gentleman in his speech did not show any realisation of the feeling that there is behind this Amendment. He has been attacked by the only two of his supporters who have heard this whole Debate, and the Government have been shown to be absolutely unjust in their outlook.

Mr. Walker: I do not want the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) to run away with the idea that I attacked the Government. I said in my concluding remarks that I was opposed to the Amendment, but that I hoped the Government would look into it a little bit more closely. I do not consider that that is the attack which the hon. Gentleman is making it out to be.

Mr. Williams: I quite understand the hon. Gentleman's interruption, and I certainly do not want him to be on the carpet upstairs. What he really did was make a straightforward statement in his speech of his own experience and as a result of that, although possibly he did not realise it all the time, he was exposing the iniquities of the Government. That having been shown so clearly from the other side of the Committee, there is no alternative but for those hon. Gentlemen to vote in favour of this Amendment.
The hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) who spoke first, should have no difficulty, judging from his speech, in supporting the Amendment, because he showed most clearly and absolutely that the position of the Opposition was just and right, and that up to the present the Government have made no effort whatsoever to attempt to do justice to the people from whom they propose taking away their property. It is grossly unfair. May I put one other point. As far as we know

up to the present there is nothing to prevent the Government taking this property and letting it at a profit. But how are we to know, with a Chancellor of the Exchequer such as we have today, that that is not the intention behind this Clause? I am sorry if I have said one or two hard words about the Financial Secretary, but I hope he will take the advice which has been offered to him and accept this Amendment.

Mr. Scollan: If Members opposite will read HANSARD tomorrow they will see that I did not attack the Government. I have attacked this Government when I thought they were wrong, and I will continue to attack Governments, so long as I am here, whenever I think they are wrong. The only point here, however—and it is a crucial one—is that whoever was responsible for this Clause was not justified in differentiating between one class of property-owner and another. The Government are not justified in seeking refuge behind an Act of Parliament which was designed for something entirely different. Whoever was responsible for putting this Clause into the Bill made a grave mistake, and I think the Government should be big enough—I do not know whether the Financial Secretary can take responsibility—to say that they will reconsider the matter in the light of the arguments which have been adduced. If I were in my right hon. Friend's position that is what I would do.

Mr. C. Williams: I apologise to the hon. Member if I put him into a difficult position by saying that he attacked the Government. I now realise that he was telling the Committee with his own great personal charm, that the Government were wrong, that he did not like them to be wrong, and that they should take his advice. I feel sure that the Financial Secretary will now accept that advice. After all, there is no reason why the Government Front Bench should always be wrong.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 123.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[4.55 p.m.


Acland, Sir R
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Neal, H (Clay[...]ross)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nichol, Mrs M. E (Bradford, N.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gibbins, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, C. W
Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gilzean, A.
Oldfield, W H


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Oliver, G H


Attewell, H. C.
Grenfell, D R
Orbach, M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R.
Grey, C F.
Paget, R. T.


Austin, H. Lewis
Grierson, E.
Pargiter, G A


Ayles, W. H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)


Bacon, Miss A.
Gunter, R. J
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Balfour, A.
Guy, W H.
Perrins, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Barstow, P G
Hale, Leslie
Popplewell, E.


Barton, C
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Battley, J. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Price, M. Philips


Bechervaise, A. E
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Proctor, W. T


Benson, G
Hardy, E. A.
Pryde, D. J


Berry, H
Harris, H. Wilson
Ranger, J


Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)
Harrison, J.
Rankin, J


Binns, J.
Hastings, Dr Somerville
Rees-Williams, D. R


Blyton, W. R.
Herbison, Miss M
Reeves, J.


Boardman, H.
Hicks, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Hobson, C. R
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Holman, P.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bramall, E. A.
House, G
Rogers, G. H. R.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hoy, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Royle, C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)
Scott-Elliot, W


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Segal, Dr. S


Bruce, Maj. D W T
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sharp, Granville


Burden, T. W
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Burke, W. A.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Simmons, C. J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Byers, Frank
Janner, B
Skinnard, F. W.


Callaghan, James
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Carmichael, James
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Snow, J. W.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sparks, J A


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Stamford, W


Chater, D.
Keenan, W
Stubbs, A E


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Cluse, W. S
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Sylvester, G. O


Cocks, F. S
Kinley, J.
Symonds, A. L


Collick, P
Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Collindridge, F
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Collins, V. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Colman, Miss G. M
Leslie, J. R.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Comyns, Dr. L
Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Cook, T. F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr G
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Corlett, Dr. J
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Longden, F.
Tiffany, S.


Crossman, R. H S
Lyne, A. W.
Titterington, M. F.


Daines, P.
McAdam, W.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
McGovern, J.
Vernon, Maj. W F


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Walker, G. H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McKinlay, A. S.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)


Deer, G
McLeavy, F.
Warbey, W. N.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. M.


Diamond, J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
West, D. G.


Dumpleton, C W
Mann, Mrs. J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon J.


Dye, S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh, E)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C
Martin, J. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edelman, M
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Medland, H. M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mitchison, G R.
Williams, W R (Heston)


Ewart, R.
Morley, R.
Willis, E.


Fairhurst, F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon J


Farthing, W. J
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, A


Fernyhough, E.
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Yates, V F


Field, Capt. W. J
Moyle, A



Forman, J. C.
Murray, J. D
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Nally, W.
Mr. Pearson and



Naylor, T. E.
Mr. J. Henderson.







NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Haughton, S. G.
Osborne, C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hollis, M. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Raikes, H. V.


Birch, Nigel
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jennings, R.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, LI.-Col. W
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)


Butcher, H W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M


Carson, E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Challen, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Channon, H.
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G.


Clarke, Col R. S.
Low, A. R W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacLeod, J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Digby, S. W
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eden, Rt Hon. A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Erroll, F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morris-Jones, Sir H
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl


Gammans, L. D.
Nicholson, G.
York, C.


Glyn, Sir R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, Lady
Odey, G. W.
Major Conant and


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Brigadier Mackeson.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Application of provisions as to rental compensation where land requisitioned before commencement of Act.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, after "or," to insert:
from the end of the period for which possession of the land is retained in the exercise of emergency powers, whichever is the later or.
There are two other related Amendments in the name of my hon. Friends and myself to this Clause. Would you prefer that we should talk about them during the discussion on this Amendment, Sir Charles?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee to talk about them all together, and to divide on any of them, if that is desired, without further discussion.

Mr. Turton: In moving the Amendment, I would remind the Committee that, under the Clause as it now stands, unless six

months' notice is given from the commencement of operation of this Measure, one is not allowed the increase in compensation from 100 per cent, to 160 per cent. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury explained his difficulty to us on an earlier occasion. He said that no great principle divided him from us, but that he was not convinced that a longer period was required and he would consult his Department for further information. We have not had a very long interval. I realise the difficulty under which the Financial Secretary was labouring, but the interval has been so short that it has not afforded him full time for that consultation. We have put down this Amendment, and we suggest to him that if he sticks to his six months' period, he should give two dates, and say either
six months from the commencement of the Act,
or, as our Amendment proposes,
from the end of the period for which possession of the land is retained in the exercise of emergency powers, whichever is the later.


Why do we choose these words? It is because they are the words which Parliament put into the Act of 1945. Therefore, a fortiori, the words ought to be in the Clause. That is all I want to say upon the Amendment which I have moved.
Our second Amendment is to leave out Subsection (3). The Government are proposing to do away with the provisions of Section 45 of the 1945 Act. I wonder whether the Committee realise the Government's intention. That Section enabled the man who had received a compensation rent lower than that prevailing on 31st March, 1939, and lower also than that upon the day appointed in that Act, to get an increase up to that level. I should have thought that was the barest justice. That was given by the Coalition Government in Section 45 of the 1945 Act. The Financial Secretary is now proposing to sweep away that right. He may argue that it is proper, in the case of people who are getting the 60 per cent. increase, to take away that right, but I can see no argument by which he can support a contention that people who do not choose to take the 160 per cent. should he shut out from exercising that right.
The Committee will remember that the Financial Secretary made it clear that often these people have less with the 60 per cent. increase than they would have under the provisions of the 1945 Act. If there are such people, it is only right to give them the protection of the 194 Act, which enabled them to get the higher compensation rental, as high, in fact, as the prevailing rental in March, 1939.
The third of our Amendments is, in page 7, line 48, at the end, to insert:
(4) Where an application under either of the two last preceding subsections is not made before the expiration of six months from the commencement of this Act then unless the authority by which the rental compensation is payable shall show to the authority to which an application is to be made under either of the said last two preceding subsections that a notice in writing addressed to the person to whom such rental compensation is payable was delivered to such person before the expiration of the said period of six months the authority to which an application is to be made under either of the last two preceding subsections shall receive and consider an application as aforesaid notwithstanding that it is made after the expiration of the said period of six months from the commencement of this Act.

We suggest that when a Government Department have requisitioned property they should send a notice in writing telling the persons concerned, of their rights under this Measure. The Amendment proposes to limit the period of notice to six months, but provides that unless the compensation-paying authority has informed the owner of the requisitioned property of his rights within that time, six months' notice shall not operate.
We have frequently found that the owners of requisitioned property are unaware of their rights under Acts of Parliament that we pass, and that was specially noticeable under the 1939 Act. A person may well remain unaware of his rights for longer than six months, and, as the Bill is now drafted, if he remains unaware for that period he loses all right to the increased compensation. We got some assurance at an earlier stage that some Government Departments were anxious that the owners of requisitioned property should be informed, but if it is put in the Bill in this form it will encourage all Government Departments to serve that notice of their rights on all owners, because they will know that if they do not serve such notices, the period for making the claim is consequentially prolonged.
I hope the Financial Secretary will accept all three Amendments, but I particularly draw his attention to the mistake of doing away with the rights under Section 45 of the 1945 Act. I well remember that when that was under discussion in the previous Parliament, it was regarded as an act of justice for owners of requisitioned property. I can see no reason why that act of justice should now be taken away by the Socialist Government from these people who will not benefit by the increase of 60 per cent. over the compensation rental.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Committee will remember that this was discussed at some considerable length before on the Committee stage.

Mr. Turton: None of these three points.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If these points were not covered in an Amendment, they were covered in the discussion. We had a long discussion on an Amendment as to whether we should have forms or whether claims could be made in writing, and the length of the period during which claims


could be put in was touched on by more than one hon. Member, and certainly by me in my reply. The point the hon. Member makes is quite a good one if we think only in terms of the 1945 Act. It is true that by Section 45 of that Act the period during which claims could be put in was made a fairly long one. It was made even longer—it was reduced almost to absurdity—by the passing of the Supplies and Services Act, which would make the extreme date something like 10th June, 1953. Even the hon. Gentleman would not desire that anyone should be able to hold up his claim and yet keep it alive for as long a period as that. We therefore arranged this period because we thought it reasonable.
The first reason is that the claims for this compensation are extremely simple. In practically every case, all the individual will do will be to ask for the 60 per cent. It may be that he is not entitled to it and in some cases, under the regulations and in the Act as it will then be, he will not be entitled to the full 60 per cent. of the 1939 ceiling; but I should imagine that almost invariably applicants will put in for the 60 per cent. and it will be left to the Department to reject it and to give reasons for the rejection when it comes to meet the claims. We can, therefore, visualise no complication which would prevent these claims from being put in within a reasonable time and we think six months reasonable.
5.15 p.m.
In special cases—we shall not be unfair about this—where it can be shown that through illness, absence abroad or other reasons a claim cannot be put in within the time stated in the Bill, extra time will be allowed and Departments will accept those claims, although according to the strict letter of the law they might be considered out of time. There is another reason which will commend itself to the Opposition. We must remember that the appointed day for the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is approaching, and owing to the shortage of staff, it is essential that these matters and these claims should as far as possible be got out of the way so that the valuation department can be free to take on that work when it comes along. We do not want to clog the machine, and it would be a good thing, the Opposition will agree,

if we could get these claims out of the way.
As I said earlier, we are not asking people for any money. We are tumbling over ourselves to pay them money. It seems an extraordinary thing that when we ask that they should put their claim in within a reasonable time, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to prevent that from being done. During the war—the 1945 Act visualised the war because the war was proceeding when the Act was passed—there was a very different set of circumstances from that which fortunately prevails now. Many of our men were in the Forces and some were in the Far East, and it was quite obvious that they could not attend to their affairs in the way they can now; and therefore it was essential that a longer period should be given for them to put in their claims. That does not apply generally now; where such cases do arise, provision is made in the Bill for an extended period. For those reasons I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. It would clog the machine and hold up things unduly. The Clause as drafted will, on the contrary, help everybody concerned, including the recipient of the compensation.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with the first Amendment, but I understood we were discussing all three Amendments to Clause 9. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the following Amendments are on quite separate points. The Financial Secretary has not yet addressed himself to them, but I hope he will say something in reply to the case made upon them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have answered the second Amendment, which hinges on the acceptance of the first. It is consequential—

Mr. Turton: It is not consequential. The right is being taken away from a class of people not covered by the Bill. That is far from being consequential. I see the difficulty in which we have been put by discussing all three Amendments together. It has confused the mind of the Financial Secretary. The three points are distinct.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the Committee agrees with our desire to reject the first Amendment, there is no point in discussing the second Amendment for the


deletion of Subsection (3). I agree that the third Amendment has not yet been touched upon because it deals at some length with another point, and I will deal with it now. The point is that some steps should be taken to inform people who are entitled to this compensation of that fact. When we discussed this previously during the Committee stage, I indicated that, although I was not sure whether anything could be done, I would discuss it within the Department to see whether some notification was possible.
I regret to say that full inquiry has not been possible, but I would remind the Committee of what I said previously. This time begins to run from the Royal Assent, when the Bill becomes law, and we had in mind that some indication should be given to individuals when the next quarter's cheque is sent to them in payment of this compensation, but that if the quarter did not coincide approximately with the date of the Royal Assent, I foresaw difficulties which might make it impossible for us to do much in this direction. I also indicated that it was all very well for me to stand at this Box and undertake to do this, that, and the other thing when I had not to carry out the work myself. The Civil Service is grossly understaffed and very much overworked, and I did not want to commit the Civil Service without further inquiry as to what might be involved.
From this Amendment, which is very loosely drawn, it appears that the Opposition are under the impression that one Department will receive the claim and another Department will pay it. That is not so; the same Department will receive the claim, agree to it or not, and then pay it. Those are minor details of drafting and, if it had been possible to accept this Amendment, no doubt we could have altered the wording to cover the facts. However, I am advised that it would be wrong to accept this Amendment, even in principle, because it would lay upon the Government an obligation in each case to notify the individual of his rights with regard to the making of a claim. The most we can do is to take what steps are open to us to see that this is brought to the notice of everyone concerned. It can be done over the B.B.C. and through the Press and, if it is possible on inquiry for us to send a slip out with the cheques, we will certainly do that. However, I would not like to bind the Government

to follow that course, and I cannot accept any form of wording which would make it obligatory.

Mr. Peake: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his ample reply, but I am by no means satisfied with the answer he gave to the first two Amendments. What is the position? The very low levels of compensation for requisitioned property fixed by the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, were slightly relaxed and were permitted to be increased slightly by Section 45 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. The Bill now before the Committee goes somewhat further than the 1945 Act and permits these prewar levels of compensation to be raised somewhat further. When these increases were permitted in the year 1945 in respect of requisitioned property, the Act of that year laid down the time limit during which applications for the then permitted increases would be entertained. The time limit is to be found in the proviso to Section 45 as follows:
Provided that this Section shall not apply in relation to any land unless, not later than six months after the appointed day or after the end of the period for which possession of the land is retained … whichever is the later, a person … gives notice in such form and manner … as may be prescribed by rules made by the Treasury ….
That is to say, for a permitted increase of compensation under the 1945 Act, the claimants had either six months from the date of the passing of the Act or six months from the date up to which the property was retained under requisition by the Government. That, of course, gave everybody ample opportunity of securing an increase to which they might be entitled.
What are the Government doing in this Bill? They are fixing a shorter time limit. They say that all claims must be made within six months or, unless there are some special circumstances attaching to them, they will be barred. They are going further and shortening the period allowed for claims which might still be made under the 1945 Act; that is to say, they are not only fixing a shorter time limit in respect of the new claims permitted by the new permitted increases under this Bill, but they are going back upon the period at present allowed for claims which can still be put forward for the smaller increases under the 1945 Act.
We say that is wrong. The imposition of these time limits does not matter to the large property owner, to the company or the building society which owns large numbers of houses. Those people have their solicitors, their estate agents and accountants who study the highly complicated Bills which we pass through this House continually. The hardship will fall upon the small property owner who does not employ a solicitor or an estate agent, for he will not know that we have passed an extremely complicated Measure which permits him to apply for an increase in his requisition rent, and that within six months of the passing of this Bill his claim will be forever barred.
5.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman says that in special cases there is power to extend the time. That is true, but what is a special case? He instanced the owner of property being in the Middle East; but there will be plenty of men and women who own small properties at present requisitioned by His Majesty's Government who will not have the faintest conception that we have passed this Measure which, with its complicated ceilings, is exceedingly difficult to understand. They will not be in a position to make a claim within the time. We say that the time limits in the 1945 Act should be restored in this Bill. That Act was passed by a Coalition Government and all parties were in the Government. Everyone was agreed that the time limits in that Measure were fair and reasonable. Why should a Socialist Government come along with time limits which prevent property owners from making claims unless they make them in a shorter time?
The right hon. Gentleman gives only a crumb of encouragement by saying that he hopes administratively it may prove possible—and he is not very encouraging about this—to include with the cheques a chit or slip in respect of requisition rents for some future period. He hoped it might be possible on investigation—overworked as the Civil Service are—to insert some slip with the quarterly cheque to notify claimants that this Measure has been passed, and that there is some entitlement to an increase. But he does not promise that. Our third Amendment

provides that that should, in fact, be done, whereas the right hon. Gentleman hopes it may be possible. If he is not able to do it, the hardships I have described will mean that many small property owners will be prohibited from getting in equity and fairness what Parliament has said they should get. We shall have to divide the Committee on the first of the three Amendments, and, I think, on the second Amendment. The slight measure of encouragement given by the right hon. Gentleman tempts me to the view that the third Amendment might be withdrawn, if he could amplify his hope that some administrative action can be taken.

Mr. Jahn McKay: There have been fairly sound arguments put forward by the Opposition. I know we are in a political field, and we are often fastened down by party politics, but despite all that, there are occasions when we should express some individual viewpoint. After listening to what has been said, I feel convinced that a case has been made out for the Amendment. We all have varied experience in regard to claims for this, that and the other, and trade union leaders have a fair amount of experience in that line. There is a tremendous amount of truth in the point which has been put that, while we are changing the law relative to property and compensation, it may be imagined that people who are interested are watchful, and that the majority of those people will find it out, but small property owners do not have the benefit of solicitors and organisations watching their interests. Many of those people may just "miss the bus."
If there is any section for which this party is supposed to stand, it is the people who have not trained solicitors and large business experience behind them to watch all the legal niceties in regard to property. The question arises whether there is any soundness in the claim that there are small property owners in this country who, while interested and anxious to get the most for their property, are not as watchful as the majority of property owners. It is quite possible—in fact, one might say it is almost sure to happen—that they will miss the point, and will not send in their applications in time, if we fasten the period down to six months.
We are dealing with a very important matter, which is of great interest and value to the people. The smaller the property owner, the more we should endeavour to see that he gets the benefit of legislation. Without allowing party politics to enter the matter, but reasoning it from an ordinary human point of view, we should remember that some people, despite the fact that they are property owners, are not trained lawyers. Some of them, perhaps, are not up to average intelligence, and some have little experience of life, apart from the fact that they have a little property. They cannot go far unless they have some assistance. Knowing all these things, I am rather surprised that this party, of all parties, should attempt to limit the time in which the application may be sent in to such a short period as six months.
I feel sure that, taking all these things into consideration, the general desire of the ordinary rank and file, the ordinary Britisher, would be to have a period of at least twice that length. I know we want to get this business through; all Government Departments wish to do that, but at the same time, we must get it through on the fairest and most reasonable basis. I do not profess to be a lawyer—I am not clever enough for that—but I think it is correct to say that to increase the time from six months to 12 months would not create any great difficulty, and perhaps no difficulty at all.
Are these Amendments sensible and logical, are they of such a character as to be agreeable to the public which we, as well as other parties, are supposed to represent? The question also arises whether there should be an obligation on the Government of the day to notify these property owners about a change in legislation. The point has been made that, when we pass legislation and announce it over the wireless, and issue public notices about changes that have taken place in the benefits which some people can get, one has to recognise that there are many people who will not see those notices.
This, again, applies to the small property owner who has not got organisations, solicitors, etc., watching his interests. A reasonable case has been presented for the Government notifying the people connected with property who are affected by this Bill. The point has been made that it would cause a tremend-

ous amount of work to do that, but I cannot see how that is so. It will certainly call for additional work, but the matter is of sufficient importance to say that it ought to be done, to meet the case, not of the big property owner, but the small one.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I believe that the suggestion about putting a slip into the envelope was mine in the first instance, and I wish to support what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) has said about the notification to these people. One of the difficulties is that the Government want to allow six months, and yet nearly three months may elapse before the quarterly payment is made and before the slip is received. As there seems to be a general opinion on this matter on both sides of the Committee, may I make the further suggestion that the period be extended to nine months? Then, whenever the cheque payment is made, assuming that at the worst that it is made three months after the Bill becomes law, there will still be a full six months. It seems wrong for the Civil Service to continue paying a small cheque to someone who should receive more.
This is not a case in which the law is being altered and everyone has to be notified. That is not the principle: it is that the Government are paying to those concerned a smaller amount than that to which they are entitled and saying nothing about it. Surely the sensible way to deal with this matter is to say that they will make the period nine months, and that they will include a notification with the last quarterly payment under the existing Act, which will be covered by the new Measure, that if application is made the money may be increased. That is a fair way of dealing with the matter—by the Government giving notice to all people who are at present receiving compensation in this way. That is the least they can be expected to do. I hope that the Financial Secretary will think about this matter again and accept this Amendment. He has gone a long way in the hope he has offered, and it is our duty to expect that if something is the general desire of both sides of the Committee, it should be incorporated in legislation.

5.45 P.m.

Mr. Digby: I should like to support what has been said, because those who


will lose under this six months' rule will not be the better-off people but those who can least afford to lose. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman has visualised how this provision will work out in their case. At the present time the daily newspapers are extremely small and they will not print much about this Bill having been passed. I very much doubt whether even the weekly newspapers will have much to say about it. If anything is broadcast about it on the wireless the news will reach more people, but it is the greatest mistake to think that it is all right to legislate for the solicitors, so to speak. In this case it is not the solicitors about whom we have to think but the people who have not much time and experience in handling affairs of this kind. I do not see how the Government are to be sure that they bring this matter home to those people within six months by the method they propose. For that reason the reply of the Financial Secretary was unsatisfactory.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): I did not hear the whole of my right hon. Friend's statement, but it would appear to me that a valid claim is valid whether it is tendered six months, nine months or 12 months after a given date. I do not think that extending the period to 12 months will serve the purpose, because people who are ignorant at the end of six months are just as likely to be ignorant at the end of 12 months. If the rental payment is to be increased, surely the Government know the properties in respect of which an entitlement exists, and there should be an automatic increase in the amount paid to the owner of the property which has been requisitioned. That is the simple way, but it may be too simple. There may be a snag. If there is, perhaps my right hon. Friend will enlighten me. I am much more concerned to make it compulsory that the increase should be paid by the Government within six months of the passing of the Measure.
It may be that some cases have already been overlooked. Without enlarging upon that, I would draw attention to some instances in which the requisition has been in existence for a long time and nothing whatever has been paid because the Department concerned cannot make up its mind whether to continue the requisition or purchase the property

outright. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to explain to some of us on this side of the Committee why, if this Bill goes through, as it will, the question of notification by the Government and notification in the Press should arise at all. Why do not the Government adopt the simple expedient of automatically increasing the rental compensation to be paid to those persons concerned when the Bill becomes law. It is extremely difficult to appeal to the soft side of a Department if a claim has not been made within a prescribed limit. All that happens is that one's attention is drawn to the fact— "Your claim is outdated and the Department can do nothing about it."
While I have every sympathy with statements made by Ministers as to their intentions, those of us who have had something to do with administering other Acts know that when we have quoted to courts of inquiry statements made in this House by learned Gentlemen in different Governments in trying to explain what an intention was we have simply been reminded, "We are not concerned with what the intention was but with what is contained in the Act." With due respect to the biggest hearted Minister who ever sat on the Front Bench, he would be in a difficulty, if a time limit were fixed, in dealing with cases of this kind. There would be absolutely nothing he could do about it. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ease my worry, and explain the reason why the automatic passing of this increase does not take place without any question at all of a claim being made by the person.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We want to be just to the person to whom this money will become due. The will and intention are there, but what I do not want to do is to make promises which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfil. Since we dealt with this in Committee we have made some inquiries, but, as I have explained, those inquiries have not been yet finished. I have not yet been able to discuss this fully with the Stationery Office, for example. The Stationery Office will have to do the printing. We have discussed it with certain Departments and found they are very willing that something should be done. We have not completed our discussions with the Service Departments. I am not yet able


to tell them the position, as I have not all the material available.
What we are thinking of is not a notice going out with the quarterly cheque, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), but of something which could go out almost as soon as the Royal Assent is given to this Measure, so that people can know straightaway from the time the six months begins to run what their rights are under the new compensation Clauses of this Bill. We hope something will be possible, but I cannot promise it. Still less could I advise the Committee to insert anything in the Bill itself. Our difficulty is that we have, with the consent of the House, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, looming ahead. That is going to lead to a very great strain on the valuation machinery of the Government. It is only fair to the staff, to the country, and to all concerned, that we should, if possible, clear the decks of all matters that can be cleared out of the way before that machinery has to take over the Act of 1947. It did seem to us, therefore, that it was essential to get these claims out of the way if possible.
There is a very different situation at present from that which prevailed in 1945, and led to the insertion of Section 45 of the Act of that year. The conditions today are entirely different. We have here a simple computation sum, and people will be in a position to put in their claims. They are not spread all over the world, as they were during the war. The vast majority of them are here in England, and where they are not, the six months can be extended. When we consider all the circumstances, and bearing in mind that what we are doing is paying out and not asking for money, I think that we should stick to the period of six months. I have repeatedly to answer questions which are directed to making Departments more speedy in their work, and in the attention which they give to the requests and letters sent to them. Here we are speeding up the machine, and it seems as though hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want us to do that, but want this thing to run on down the years. That is not right. It is slovenly, and I hope the Committee will resist this Amendment.
The Clause as drafted will be worked with the utmost sympathy. Certain regulations and provisions were put into the

War Damage Acts, and people were required to put in their claims within a certain time. That time has never been worked to. People have been putting in claims long after the event. Where those claims could be substantiated and reasons given for the delay, they have been accepted, and payments have been made. Here the same sort of thing will continue. We shall treat these applications with the utmost sympathy, and the mere fact that it is a few days, or a week or a month overdue, if there is good reason for it, will not invalidate the claim which, if it is just, will be paid. We are trying to do something in addition to Press notices and announcements over the wireless and so on. We are contemplating something more direct to the people concerned, and we hope that, with that assurance on my part, the Committee will agree to leave the Clause as it is.

Mr. West: If the computation is a simple one, why is it not possible, when the cheques are sent out, for the Department itself, without imposing any obligation upon a person to put in a claim for the increased payment, to make that computation and send out the cheque? In that way the difficulty, so far as the Town and Country Planning Act is concerned, would be avoided, the matter would be facilitated for the person concerned, the strain on the administrative Department would be eased and justice would be rendered to everyone.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As hon. Members opposite, who have had experience of these matters, will know, that is, unfortunately, not possible. These things are changing constantly. A claim must be made in the proper form and checked. The position very often changes, and it would not be possible to send cheques out wholesale, merely adding 60 per cent. to the amount sent out for the previous three months.

Mr. West: Presumably the cheque is being sent to someone who is entitled to receive it. If the cheque is being sent to the individual who is entitled to receive the income, what objection can there be to adding the percentage increase?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 118; Noes, 248.

Division No. 68.]
AYES.
[6.0 p.m.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Harris, H. Wilson
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Haughton, S. G.
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hollis, M. C.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bower, N.
Hope, Lord J.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J.
Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Jennings, R.
Scott, Lord W.


Brown, W. J (Rugby)
Keeling, E. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon G
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Carson, E.
Langford-Holt, J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W. Y
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Davidson, Viscountess
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Teeling, William


Digby, S. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Eccles, D. M.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Watt, Sir G S. Harvie


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J
Williams, C (Torquay)


Fox, Sir G
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Nutting, Anthony
York, C.


Gammans, L. D.
Odey, G. W.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Commander Agnew and


Grant, Lady
Osborne, C.
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.


Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.



Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pitman, I. J.





NOES.


Acland, Sir R
Chamberlain, R. A.
Fernyhough, E.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Chater, D.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Attewell, H. C.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Cluse, W. S.
Foot, M. M.


Ayles, W. H.
Cobb, F. A.
Forman, J. C.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Cocks, F. S.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Bacon, Miss A.
Collick, P
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N


Balfour, A.
Collindridge, F.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Collins, V. J.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Barstow, P. G.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Gibbins, J.


Barton, C.
Comyns, Dr. L.
Gibson, C. W.


Battley, J. R.
Cook, T. F.
Gilzean, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Belcher, J. W.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Greenwood A. W. J (Heywood)


Benson, G
Cove, W. G.
Grey, C F.


Berry, H
Crawley, A.
Grierson, E.


Beswick, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gunter, R. J.


Binns, J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Guy, W. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hale, Leslie


Bottomlèy, A. G.
Deer, G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Bowies, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Diamond, J.
Harrison, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Dodds, N. N.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bramall, E. A.
Dumpleton, C W
Hicks, G.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edelman, M.
Hobson, C. R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Brown, George (Belper)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
House, G.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hoy, J.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hubbard, T


Burke, W. A.
Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)
Hudson, J H (Eating, W.)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)


Callaghan, James
Fairhurst, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Castle, Mrs B A.
Farthing, W. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)







Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Murray, J. D.
Stamford, W.


Irving, W. J (Tottenham, N.)
Nally, W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Janner, B.
Naylor, T. E.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Swingler, S.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Symonds, A. L.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Oldfield, W H.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Keenan, W
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)


Kenyon, C
Orbach, M.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


King, E. M.
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Kinley, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Parker, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lee, F (Hulme)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Tiffany, S.


Leslie, J. R.
Pearson, A
Titterington, M. F.


Lever, N. H
Perrins, W.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Levy, B. W.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Popplewell, E.
Viant, S P


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Walker, G. H.


Lewis, T (Southampton)
Proctor, W T
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)


Longden, F.
Ranger, J
Warbey, W. N.


Lyne, A. W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Watson, W. M.


McAdam, W.
Reaves, J.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


McGhee, H. G.
Reid, T (Swindon)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


McGovern, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wells, W T. (Walsall)


McKinlay, A. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N)
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wheatley, J. T (Edinburgh)


McLeavy, F.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wigg, George


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Royle, C
Wilkes, L.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Sargood, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Scollan, T
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Segal, Dr. S.
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Sharp, Granville
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Medland, H. M.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Williamson, T.


Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, J (Erdington)
Willis, E.


Messer, F.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wyatt, W


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Skinnard, F. W
Yates, V F.


Mitchison, G. R
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Zilliacus, K.


Morley, R.
Solley, L J
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morgan, Dr H. B.
Sorensen, R. W.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Soskice, Sir Frank
Mr. Hannan.


Movie, A.
Sparks, J. A.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 7, line 37, to leave out Subsection (3).

Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Peake: I think that there is a third Amendment to Clause 9 which you have not put to the Committee, Sir Robert.

The Deputy-Chairman: I understood that the three Amendments were discussed together and that it was not necessary to put the third one.

Mr. Peake: We have already discussed the Amendments, but I think that it is necessary that you should put this one to the Committee so that we can register our objection at the refusal of the Government.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Peake.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 7, line 48, at the end to insert:

(4) Where an application under either of the two last preceding Subsections is not made before the expiration of six months from the commencement of this Act then unless the authority by which the rental compensation is payable shall show to the authority to which an application is to be made under either of the said last two preceding Subsections that a notice in writing addressed to the person to whom such rental compensation is payable was delivered to such person before the expiration of the said period of six months the authority to which an application is to be made under either of the last two preceding Subsections shall receive and consider an application as aforesaid notwithstanding that it is made after the expiration of the said period of six months from the commencement of this Act.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: The next Amendment selected is that to Clause II, page 9, line 30.

Mr. Turton: Would you not consider again, Sir Robert, whether the Amendment to Clause 10, page 8, line 28—at end insert:


or the amount of the expense actually incurred or reasonably to be incurred in the rehabilitation of the land whichever is the greater.
—should not be selected? It deals with a rehabilitation point and is of vital importance to the whole of the country. In the Committee stage, it was left in a rather inconclusive position, and I now ask you for your reconsideration of that point.

Mr. Peake: I am sorry to pursue the point, but may I say that this question was discussed in another form during the Committee stage, and that, in the course of the discussion upon it, the Financial Secretary gave an assurance in reply to a question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)? The question put to the Financial Secretary was as follows:
Could we not … save a Division and the time that that involves, by having from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that he will give this matter further consideration between now and Report stage?
The Financial Secretary said:
Most certainly, and I should like to tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948: Vol 446, C. 1101.]
and so on. That assurance was clearly given during the previous stage of the Bill that further consideration would be given to this point. If you do not select the Amendment on Recommittal of the Bill, Sir Robert, we shall be precluded by the Rules of Order from raising the matter on the Report stage. I therefore plead with you, in view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman on an earlier stage of the Bill, that this Amendment may be selected.

6.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: There was a considerable amount of time given to this matter in the Committee stage, but, in view of the circumstances related by the right hon. Gentleman, provided that it is discussed shortly, that Amendment may now be considered.

CLAUSE 10.—(Amount of compensation in respect of making good requisitioned land.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, at end, to insert:
or the amount of the expense actually incurred or reasonably to be incurred in the rehabilitation of the land whichever is the greater.

I am most grateful to you, Sir Robert, and I will try to put the point as shortly as I can. As the Bill is drafted, it will mean that, in certain cases of land, the compensation will not be sufficient to rehabilitate it. May I give the Committee some examples of the types of cases? First, there is the amenity land—the moorlands, commons and places where the agricultural value of the land is small. In all these cases, the new method of compensation will result in the amount of compensation being far less than the cost of rehabilitation. If we take the position of common land which has had on it mechanical armoured vehicles, the damage done is not as great as the difference in the compulsory purchase price before requisitioning and after, but the cost of rehabilitation is considerable. Throughout my constituency and in the adjoining constituency on the Yorkshire Wolds, great damage was done by armoured training before D Day. That was necessary work, but it is vital to the owners of that land that it should be rehabilitated. Under the 1939 Act they can get the 1939 value for that land, but, under this Clause, they will get an ever smaller amount—the 1939 value less today's value, if they can sell it. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is an unjust position.
I want to deal with two other classes of case. There is the case where there has been an anti-aircraft site or an aerodrome, where the Service Departments have laid down large slabs of concrete. Unless the owner of the land can get the cost of rehabilitation, which is the cost of taking up these slabs of concrete and getting the grass sown, that land will be sterilised for agriculture, not only for our generation but for future generations. It is therefore important that the cost of rehabilitation in these cases should be the measure of compensation, and that is all I am asking for in this Amendment. I am not asking for one penny piece more than the cost of rehabilitation in such cases.
Thirdly, I want to deal with opencast coalmining. It is quite true that part of the rehabilitation is covered by the Ministry of Works, who do the back filling and re-levelling, but they hand the land back to agriculture in such a state that great extra expense is required for further rehabilitation and draining and fencing. If the compensation is diminished, it will not be sufficient to rehabilitate that


land and prevent it being lost to agriculture. When the Committee bear in mind that the area of opencast coal working on good agricultural land which has at present been taken amounts to 27,000 acres, and that a further 50,000 acres have been earmarked for this work, they will realise the importance of the Amendment. We are asking, in all these three cases, that, in the interests of the land, the interests of people who care for agriculture and the interests of countryside amenities, compensation shall be the cost of rehabilitation.

Mr. York: May I add a few words about opencast coalmining, to which my hon. Friend has made only a brief reference? I want to put before the Financial Secretary one or two facts which should help him very much in his consideration of this problem. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has not had sufficient time since the Committee stage to find out all he wanted to know on the various points which he said needed further consideration. There are certain points in the opencast coal controversy which the right hon. Gentleman cannot be expected to understand. One of them refers to the cost of rehabilitating the land after it has been restored. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, and as I explained on the last occasion when we discussed this matter, when the opencast coalminers have finished their work, and the contractors have put back the soil, more or less in the opposite direction to that in which nature first put it, the land is in a terrible state.
I spent last Sunday on one of the largest opencast coal sites in the country, so I know what I am talking about. The land is eroded and boggy, and the overburden which was resting next door to the coal is working up to the surface. There is a great deal of coal, of sorts, on the surface, and because it is only a few inches below what is called the "top-soil" in the restoration, it works up to the top of the soil in cultivation. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see that, whereas the land was fertile before the operation took place, it is now relatively infertile.
I have been into the costs of re-stabilising land after the so-called "restoration." I want to put some figures—which have been obtained from an expert in this matter, and are accurate

figures—before the Financial Secretary to show him what a problem we are up against. In the case of the Wentworth coal working sites, the land concerned was originally a well wooded and well fenced area on which a great deal of dairy farming was carried out. Shelter belts and good thorn fences made the area relatively sheltered for stock. Today, there are no fences, and a great deal of woodland has been completely obliterated. I am not going to talk about the woodland, because that is a different problem; I am going to talk about the fences. There are now concrete posts and wire fences all over the area. In the first place, the wire will not last for more than two or three years in that heavily polluted atmosphere; and, secondly, it is essential, for proper estate management, as well as for good farming, that proper fences—quickthorn fences—should be replanted. Moreover, there must be a guard rail to keep the stock off the fences while they are growing. The cost of replanting fences works out at about £30 an acre, taking a figure of 15s. 10d. per yard run of the fence. That is one point.
In addition, there is the under drainage. The Financial Secretary will know that, if a field is wet, the agricultural community extract the water from the land by digging lines of trenches, putting clay pipes at the bottom and filling the trenches in again. That work today costs £18 to £20 an acre after the Government grant has been taken off. Therefore, we have between £48 and £50 per acre for that part of the restoration.
There is a third expense—the general after-cultivation and re-establishment of the ground, whether it be arable or grass land, over a period of 10 years. Including shelter belts in the cost, my informant gave a figure of about £15 per acre for that part of the work. Therefore, we get a figure of between £50 and £60 which still has to be spent upon the rehabilitation of these sites after they have been handed back to agriculture. The value of such land before opencast coalmining was started, was probably about £30 an acre.
It is an interesting point that, if that land had been building land ripe for development, upon which houses might have been expected to go up, its value, but for the fact that opencast coalmining had taken place, would have gone up con-


siderably in the course of the next few years and, therefore, the compensation would have been based on something like £200 per acre. If the land had been about to be built on, the whole of the restoration costs could have been met under the law as it stands, but because it is good agricultural land it cannot be rehabilitated under the present law. That seems to me to be one of the main arguments in favour of the Amendment.
There is one other point I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman, which has not been mentioned before. It has been suggested that Section 52 of the old Act could be used for the purpose of paying this compensation. I have been considering that point very carefully, and there seem to me to be two objections to using that Section. In the first place, it appears to be governed by the words "war works" or "war use," and, in the second place, it depends on the provision that the land shall be dealt with in a particular manner. As to the first point, there may be some way in which our legal advisers could get round it. On the second point, however, the Ministry of Agriculture, which is the body responsible for this particular type of renovation, is not altogether a reliable body for that purpose. Reports which have come to me as to their methods of deciding whether an area is suitably restored or not, do not give me confidence. I heard of one case where the agent of the Ministry viewed the restoration, and passed it, from the road. He did not go on to the land until the owner's agent came along, and said, "It is no use looking at it from the road; you must walk over it." He got the Ministry's man out of his car and made him walk over the land, after which he changed his mind.
It may well be that under this Section the Ministry of Agriculture would suggest the land being dealt with in a particular manner, but that that would not, in fact, be the type of restoration required. The obvious solution which would meet the situation is that the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Agriculture, between them, should retain the land so long as the permanent work of restoration was not completed, or, if that was not suitable, or not popular with the two Government Departments concerned, that the full cost of restoration, as and when it

had been carried out, should be paid to the owner. I cannot see that if the Government want agricultural land, which has been used for opencast coal-mining, rehabilitated and brought back to full food production, they can reject this Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are dealing here, of course, with terminal compensation. The Amendment, which it was at first presumed would not be called, tries once more to do what we decided by a majority, when we were dealing with this point in Committee, was inadvisable as part of the provisions of the Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, that is not true. May I remind him that we divided on the Closure but not on the Question. We did this because we had received an assurance that the matter would be reconsidered between then and the Report stage.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We had a discussion and we divided on whether we should finish the Debate on that particular topic or not, and when the Question was put the Opposition did not divide. I accept that correction and I am sorry if I misled the Committee.

Mr. Turton: Because of the assurances given we did not divide. We were prevented from withdrawing. I was on my feet trying to withdraw.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: A Division was called and for some reason best known to themselves—fortunately this is a free country—the Opposition did not appoint any tellers and therefore no Division was held. It is a small matter and we will not pursue it further because it has not much to do with what we are now discussing.
The Government proposal in this Bill is to boost up the compensation provisions and, in future, if this Bill is passed, terminal compensation is to be up to the diminution in current value—that is, we take the value before the damage, the value after the damage, and the one taken from the other gives the ceiling for terminal compensation. Normally, as we have argued on this side of the House, that works out reasonably enough. It was certainly thought reasonable by the


party opposite to have a ceiling when the 1939 Act was put on the Statute Book, and we have done no more than to accept the formula then laid down and to increase the ceiling. We agree that it may not work with complete justice to the owner of certain types of land (because we are dealing with the owner and not the occupier), for instance where we have agricultural land of no great value. If the damage done has been considerable, it may well be that the formula which is normally considered to a fair one would give insufficient compensation, which, as a result, might not meet anything like the cost of rehabilitation to the owner.
The question arises whether, that being so, anything can be done. I believe I am right in saying that the only case where this kind of thing occurs is where opencast coal operations have taken place. It is true that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) said there were cases of common land which had been badly cut up either during the war or since by training and which would take a great deal of rehabilitation.

Mr. York: Not common land.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned common land. In any event that sort of case is amply covered under Section 52 of the 1945 Act and, therefore, I think the only case left for us to consider now is that which arises where opencast coal-mining has taken place. I hope I have carried the Committee with me so far.

Mr. Turton: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes for dissent to be expressed verbally I would say "That is not so." Clause 52 deals only with a certain limited number of cases where the Government Department rehabilitates land. One of the guilty men representing a Service Department which fails to rehabilitate land after laying it waste is sitting on his left beside him.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is not strictly correct. Section 52 of that Act was designed to assist, is assisting, and I hope will continue to assist, the type of case which he has in mind. That being so, the one type of case to which attention should now be directed, if one wants to do justice to the people concerned, is where agricultural land has been requisitioned for open-

cast coal working. We agree that the cost of restoring the damage done there can be and normally would be—because it would not have buildings on it—vastly in excess of the amount under the formula which could be given to the owner by way of terminal compensation. Because of that, as we have said from this Box during the previous Committee stage, the Government undertakes to put the land back at public expense into a fair state of rehabilitation. It fills in all pot holes, it puts on a topsoil, it puts up fencing—and that is why I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Ripon indicate that the cost of fencing would fall on the owner—

Mr. York: It will.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: My information is that that is not so.

Mr. York: It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that that is the impression of the Government, but if he will come with me I will show him a site and prove to him the facts.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am always extremely willing to go anywhere with the hon. Gentleman but if he has Wentworth in mind I would tell him—and he probably knows already—that it is adjacent to my own Division and I know the area fairly well. It may well be—I do not know—that here and there, where opencast working has taken place, a certain amount of rehabilitation has followed but has not been all it should have been. If that is so, the Government would like to have some indication from those who know and who have seen what is happening, because our intention is quite definitely, where opencast coal working has taken place, that the land should be rehabilitated and returned to its proper agricultural use at the earliest possible moment. Knowing that, under the formula, it would be unfair to the owner to hand the land back to him without doing anything to it, the Government undertake to do a very large part of the necessary rehabilitation.

Mr. York: Why not all?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am coming to that. It returns that land to what might be called a state fit for grazing and it will put up fencing. In addition, the Government put in temporary drainage. All that


is done before the land is handed back to the owner and compensation for terminal damage falls to be assessed. I said temporary drainage quite deliberately.

Mr. York: May I ask what that means? I presume it does not mean pipe drainage underneath but ditches.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Sometimes it might mean pipe drainage, but normally, I imagine, it would be ditches; and for this reason, that until the land has settled down it is impossible to put in drainage that is likely to be permanent. It would only mean a waste of money. What the Government will do is to ask the owner to to enter into an agreement that, as and when expert advice indicates that the time has arrived for permanent drainage to be put in, it should be put in at public expense. Opposition Members may ask, Why not pay the farmer or owner, at the time we derequisition the land, his terminal compensation for the permanent drainage that will follow in a few years' time? The answer to that is, that it is felt that this drainage is absolutely essential because food production in this country will loom more and more as one of the things to which we must pay attention as a nation. Therefore, it is essential that that drainage should be done. If we pay compensation before it is possible for the owner to do the drainage—and a change of ownership may take place, and all sorts of things may happen—that sum of money may not reach its destination.

Mr. York: It would under our Amendment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Therefore, it is the Government's policy to do the things I have mentioned towards rehabilitating land before handing it back, and then in due time, when expert advice says, "This can be done; the land will not sink any more," the Government come in and the proper drainage is carried out by them. I think, therefore, that the Amendment which, I agree, is directed towards giving to the owner something more in the way of compensation than he would get if he had to bear the full brunt of the formula as laid down is not necessary; because by the means I have outlined it is the Government's intention to meet him, where we have opencast coal

working which does, I agree, interfere most drastically with the land. The Government mean to play fair with the owner of this type of land for the simple reason—I have already indicated it—that, though we must first of all get the coal, because the national need for coal is so great, we must, too, rehabilitate the land used in that way, because it is equally needed for growing foodstuffs.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: The Financial Secretary stuck very closely to his brief, but I am afraid that his brief was singularly inadequate. He said the Government do certain things in the matter of rehabilitating the opencast coal sites after the workings have been finished, but I can assure him that that simply does not occur. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to come down and tell us what is the Government's policy, and what is in the regulations. It is in the regulations that top soil and subsoil should be put into different places from the rest of the earth when the operations are taking place. But no contractor engaged on this work ever follows the regulations, and that is the primary cause of the trouble. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to shake his head, but these things which are supposed to happen simply do not happen. I myself can speak only for Leicestershire, but my hon. Friends in the Debate in Committee last week said that the same sort of thing was going on elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government make themselves responsible for putting in fencing. He completely failed to meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) that owing to the atmosphere, and other things, the fencing wears out, and that then the cost of replacing the fencing which has been put in by the Government falls on the farmer. The right hon. Gentleman also tried to make a lot of the point that the Government fill in the potholes which result from the heavy soil being placed on top of the light soil. It really does not help to rehabilitate land to fill in a lot of potholes with cinders; but that is, in fact, what is happening in Leicestershire. I can take the right hon. Gentleman to the Loughborough Division and show him how the council have filled in a great many of the potholes with cinders—which knocks the


bottom clean out of his argument that the Government have put the land back into a state suitable for grazing. Grazing is impossible in any field where there has been opencast coal working. The land will not grow any crops whatever.
6.45 p.m.
The Financial Secretary said that food production is essential today. Of course, it is. If it is essential, then surely this Amendment is also essential, because it is designed to give to the farmer the money with which to pay for the necessary tools with which to do his job—the necessary tools being the grazing and the fertile soil needed for the production of food.
If we do not get this Amendment, I do not see how it will be possible for any farmer who has had opencast coal workings on his farm to produce on those particular sites the food which the Financial Secretary himself so rightly says is essential to the welfare of this country.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Our position here today is similar to that in which we were during the Committee stage discussion of the matter, except that instead of having a reply from the Solicitor-General we have had a reply from the Financial Secretary. Every argument he used was in favour of the Amendment. I fail to see why, if he agrees that difficulties are being experienced in all parts of the countryside where there have been opencast coal workings, he cannot accept the very simple words of this Amendment and conclude his agreement in legislative form. This Amendment is similar in terms to that moved on the Committee stage, but we have tried to meet the argument of the Solicitor-General during the last Debate by putting in the word "actually."
All we are asking is thta owners should be compensated for rehabilitation purposes to the amount
actually incurred or reasonably to be incurred in the rehabilitation of the land whichever is the greater.
The Financial Secretary gave us a very definite undertaking that this point would be considered between the Committee stage and the Report stage. From what he has said today, my hon. Friends can only believe that very little consideration has been given to it.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but could he tell me, by reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT, when I made that promise?

Sir T. Dugdale: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said:
Could we not—I make my appeal now to the right hon. Gentleman—save a Division and the time that involves, by having from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that he will give this matter further consideration between now and Report stage?
To which the Financial Secretary replied:
Most certainly, and I should like to tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that before the night is very much older.…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1101.]
It would seem to me that we have made very little progress in this matter.
I would sum up our arguments, which, I believe, are still conclusive. We are fearful lest the ceiling which is set under this Bill will stop rehabilitation; and if the ceiling stops rehabilitation, then, in fact, it does stop food production in those areas which have been used for opencast coalmining. We have had instances referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) and my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) where they have seen with their own eyes the condition of land which has been handed back after opencast coal operations have taken place. I have received the same information, that although land which is handed back after opencast coalmining has taken place, would appear to be suitable for cultivation by the farmer, yet, owing to the turning up of the subsoil, a very great deal of work and expense will be necessary.
I hope it is not too late for the Financial Secretary to give an assurance that he will look at this again before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The right hon. Gentleman says that this point is very much in the minds of the Government. Under what powers does he propose that the necessary compensation shall be given to the owner in the cases to which he referred? I can see no powers in this Bill, and I am not clear under what Act or further proposals he has the necessary powers to give adequate compensation to rehabilitate. We


regret that the Government have not been able to say more on this matter, and in order to register our very strong feeling we are bound to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I am sorry that the Financial Secretary has not seen fit to meet us on this Amendment. I believe he is trying genuinely to be fair, and thinks he is being fair. The Clause as drafted does not meet the case, and does not treat fairly those who have had their land disturbed in this manner. The Financial Secretary said that fences were put back. Well, that is quite true. Although it may not have happened in certain cases, it obviously is the intention of the Government that it should happen. The point is that a quick hedge is being done away with, and only a wire fence with concrete posts put in its place. Everybody knows that to maintain a wire fence costs very much more than to maintain a quick hedge. It may well be that in certain parts of the country, such as Yorkshire and the industrial areas, the wire will be ruined by the polluted atmosphere. The right hon. Gentleman went on to add that the Government did have drains dug, and that when the land had settled down, pipes, or whatever it may be, were installed. If that is done, well and good. But while he was saying that, he himself admitted that it takes some time for land to settle down.
He did not deal at all with the third and, to my mind, most important point made by my hon. Friends, namely, the loss of fertility of the soil. No one is compensated in respect thereof, and there is no question but that it will be many years before the land in question is restored to a proper state of fertility. It is probable that several green crops will have to be put in, giving no return to the farmer. Any hon. Member with an elementary knowledge of gardening knows that soil cannot be treated in this manner and expected to produce crops immediately after. A case has been made for a greater measure of compensation being given to these people until their land has been properly rehabilitated.

Mr. Baldwin: I wish to add my small testimony to the case put forward by my hon. Friends. I will give my own experience in Shropshire.
It is no use the Government taking up the line that they restore and rehabilitate the land, because they do not. They have received overwhelming evidence from those who understand the problem and have to deal with it, that this soil is not restored. Therefore, why continue to aver that it is restored? Some four or five years ago on an estate in Shropshire with which I had to deal, 28 acres of land was requisitioned for opencast coalmining. At the end of the requisitioning period the whole of the subsoil, comprising firestone and fireclay, had been turned up on top of the ground. Incidentally, not one bucketful of coal was produced, after an expenditure of some £70,000 to £80,000. The land was then levelled. It was made as level as the Floor of this House, and looked a very beautiful spot. The Ministry of Works then wanted to hand back that land to the estate without paying any compensation at all. We haggled over it for two years, and eventually an agreement was arrived at, and they paid a reasonable figure for that land.
If this opencast coalmining is to continue under the same conditions, the agricultural land of this country will be still further reduced, and some step should be taken to ensure that it is done properly. The topsoil should be taken off and put on one side so that it can be replaced when the subsoil is levelled. It is no good the Ministry of Works contradicting us on this. The Ministry took this matter up with me after I had written to "The Times" about it and called attention to this particular site, and they suggested they were so disturbed about it that they would make an investigation. They had reports from the local county executive committee saying it was done more or less correctly, but I challenged that statement and said, "When you conduct the investigation, allow me to come with you to show you what has been done."
As proof of whether I, as an agent, think the land has been disturbed, I would point out that I have now, at a rent of 1s. a year for the whole 28 acres, let it to the owner of a smallholding on an adjoining piece of land, in the hope that he will turn out his cows and poultry on to the land, so that eventually, in the course of years, some topsoil will be built up to replace what is there. It is not even


a case of planting green crops and ploughing it in, because it is absolutely sterile and nothing will grow until the top soil is restored.

Mr. Assheton: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) put a question which has not been answered. The question was: Under what Act or Clause of this Bill does the Financial Secretary think it is possible to pay the compensation to which he referred?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Terminal compensation will be paid under Clause 10 of this Bill. That is quite definite. It is laid down in the 1939 Act, and is boosted—if I may use that expression—by Clause 10 of this Bill. That is where the terminal compensation will come from. As we indicated when discussing this earlier, it is possible that in certain cases compensation for disturbance might accrue on the lines of the Agriculture Act, 1947. We may return to that again. I do not know. Other compensation to farmers is also possible under, I think it is, Section 2 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the 1939 Act. Strictly speaking, we are now discussing compensation payable under Clause 10 of this Bill. I understood it was decided not to call this Amendment at all, but it was agreed that we might discuss it. I now understand it is proposed to take it to a Division. I do not mind, but it is not what we agreed when we decided to discuss it.

Mr. Peake: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has completely understood the question put to him arising out of the earlier speech which he made on this Amendment. This Clause deals with terminal payment of compensation, as he said. That is the final payment made when the land is derequisitioned; and the ceiling to the payment of compensation under the Clause is the diminution in value of the land. The question we ask is: By how much has the value of the land been reduced by what has happened to it during Government occupation? The Financial Secretary admitted in his speech that the cost of rehabilitation falling upon the owner to whom the land is handed back may, in some cases, exceed the diminution in value. The right hon. Gentleman made that perfectly clear. We have agricultural land worth £30 an acre. Opencast coalmining takes place, and the

land is then handed back with a value of £ an acre. The cost of rehabilitation may well be £40 or £50 an acre, and it is in the interests of the country that rehabilitation should take place.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I made it perfectly plain. We decided that the formula laid down could in normal cases be said to meet the situation. It was the formula laid down by the Conservative Government in 1939, and it has worked pretty well. Where the agricultural land is of no great value, it is true that the formula would work very adversely to the owner of the land. Before the Government hand back the land to the owner, realising that if it were handed back in its damaged state it would be unfair, because the cost of rehabilitation would be in excess of what the owner would receive, they rehabilitate it up to the grazing level. They put in fences, carry out a certain amount of drainage, replace the top-soil and all the rest of it.
Many of the speeches from hon. Members opposite have been to the effect that this work has not been done as well as it might be. That is not my fault, and if contractors have done this work badly, something should be said and done about it The Government fill in pot-holes, re-level the land, re-fence it, and bring it back to the state of grazing land. Even then it may not be fertile enough, or it may not be in the state it was in when it was taken over for opencast coalmining. The formula then begins to work, and the owner is paid the compensation which is due to him under the formula laid down in Clause 10. Obviously, that would not cover permanent drainage. We cannot put in drainage at that stage, because the land has not settled down. It will take some years for that to happen. The Government enter into an agreement with the owner that at a given time, when all concerned have come to the conclusion that it is the time to put in pipe drainage, the Government will put in pipe drainage to round off the assistance given to that land. I think that this is fairly fair, and that is the answer to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Peake: There is a large measure of agreement about this. The right hon. Gentleman agrees that the cost of rehabilitation still falling to be carried out in the public interest may exceed the dimunition in


value of the land. The dimunition in the value of the land may be, without this Amendment, smaller than the ultimate cost of rehabilitation falling to be carried out, and the ceiling of compensation is the diminution in value. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will not accept our Amendment, which lays down that the measure of compensation shall be the diminution in value or the cost of the rehabilitation, whichever is the greater. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government, in practice, having paid terminal compensation on the basis of diminution in value, will then enter into an agreement in those particular cases to make further payments over and above the statutory terminal payment four or five years later, when the work necessary for complete rehabilitation is carried out.
We want to know under what statutory power the Government can enter into an agreement to give away public money to individuals, when they are not obliged to do so under any statute so far as we know. Surely, it will be said that the measure of terminal compensation is fixed by this Bill, and that there is no legal liability to pay any more. Moreover, if the Government do pay more under an agreement made with an individual, I should have thought that the Public Accounts Committee would have something very strong to say about it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to specify under what powers the Ministry concerned are to make ex gratia payments to individuals for carrying out work on the land. They can, of course, make 50 per cent. grants towards drainage expenses and things of that character, but what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that the Government will enter into a firm agreement to pay for the whole of certain works of rehabilitation, and we do not know what is their authority, and what duty lies upon the Government to enter into agreements of that character. We do not know whether the owner of the land can impose on the Government a legal liability to make further payment.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is no statutory duty or obligation on the Government to do this. I am advised that it is not necessary. The Government will be doing this work, and not paying for it to be done by the owner. The Government intend to do it for the sole reason that they

want to see the work clone, because it is. essential that the land of this country shall be returned to growing of food at the earliest moment. It is only the dire need for coal that has made the Government go in for opencast coal mining. In the interests of the nation, it is necessary to get this land back into good heart. We are not going to leave it to the owner to do this draining. Therefore, the Government will do it themselves, and no statutory powers are necessary. The Department which does the work will have the cost borne on a vote, and it will eventually find its way into the Appropriation Act.

Mr. Peake: Does the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that Government Departments can carry out work at Government expense on privately owned land, the value of which will accrue to the private landowner, without any statutory authority?

Mr. York: Mr. York rose

The Chairman: I must ask the Committee to come to a decision. This matter was debated on a previous occasion for over an hour, and I selected this Amendment today because I gathered it was suggested that something in the nature of an assurance was given on the previous occasion which it was the desire of Members to clear up and on the understanding that the matter would be raised briefly. I would also draw the attention of the Committee to the Standing Order which deals with repetition.

Mr. York: We have had today a considerable extension of the powers which the Government intend to use in the restoration of land, and we have tried by a series of questions to find out what exactly is meant by this extension, and also what legal rights the Government have in the matter. I wish to ask one further question in order to try and clarify the issue. Can the Financial Secretary say whether the promise he has given that the Government will come back in five years' time, or whatever the period is, and redrain the land also extends to their replanting the quick hedges wherever they are necessary?

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Colonel Ropner: On a point of Order, Major Milner. The Closure has not been moved. May I


point out, with due respect, that I have not spoken a word in this Debate. May I ask under what Ruling the Chairman terminates a discussion of this sort.

The Chairman: It can be terminated by agreement or by moving the Closure, when it would be for the Chair to decide whether to accept that Motion or not. I hope however that the hon. and gallant Member, having regard to what I have said, may, after consulting with his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, agree that it is not necessary to prolong the discussion which was intended to be brief but which has gone on for an hour-and-a-half. It appears to have largely consisted of repetition which, as the hon. Member knows, it is within the power of the Chair to check.

Colonel Ropner: With respect to your Ruling, Major Milner, which I do not want to transgress, I hope that the Committee will allow me, as representing a very large agricultural constituency, and as one who has not uttered a word in this Debate, although many hon. Members have spoken on several occasions, to detain the Committee for one minute. I was shocked to hear the Financial Secretary assert that the arrangement which he is now supporting is, to use his own words, "fairly fair." In the view of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, "fairly fair" is not good enough. It means that a number of farmers will suffer. I do not know if the Financial Secretary was being altogether sincere when he expressed surprise that we should ask for a Division at the end of this discussion. I know of no agreement that there should not be a Division, and I am anxious to divide the Committee when

the arrangement which the Government insist on maintaining is one which can only be described as "fairly fair."

Mr. Assheton: I do not want to prolong the Debate, but I want to give the Financial Secretary or the Solicitor-General an opportunity of conveying to the Committee an answer, which I hope they have now ascertained from their advisers, to the question put by my hon. Friends on this side. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been answered."] The question which has been put, and to which no answer has been given is: What statutory authority have the Government for making the payments that they propose to make in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's speech?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely the right hon. Gentleman himself and the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), both of whom have been Financial Secretaries to the Treasury in their time, know that what I have said is correct, namely, that the statutory authority will be the Appropriation Act.

Mr. Assheton: I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that. So far as we know, the position is that the Government have no power to make this payment. If they intend to take power to do so, we shall be glad to know of it. The position as left now is unsatisfactory.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: They are doing the work themselves and not making a payment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 251.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Duthie, W. S.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Baldwin, A E.
Gage, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Beamish, Maj T V H
Gammans, L. D.
Maclean, F. H. R.


Bennett, Sir P.
Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)


Birch, Nigel
Grimston, R. V
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Manningham-Buller, R. E


Bower, N.
Haughton, S. G.
Marples, A. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Headlam, Lieut-Col RI. Hon. Sir C
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Maude, J. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jarvis, Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J


Butcher, H. W
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Challen, C.
Jennings, R.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Nutting, Anthony


Conant, Maj R. J. E.
Lambert, Hon. G
Odey, G. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Langford-Holt, J.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Digby, S W
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Drayson, G B
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.


Drewe, C
Low, A. R W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Pitman, I. J




Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Walker-Smith, D.


Prescott, Stanley
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Raikes, H V
Studholme, H. G
Wheatley, Col. M J. (Dorset, E.)


Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Sutcliffe, H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Teeling, William
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)
Thomas, J P L. (Hereford)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ropner, Col. L.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)
York, C.


Scott, Lord W.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)
Touche, G C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smith, E P. (Ashford)
Turton, R H.
Commander Agnew and


Stewart, J Henderson (File, E.)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Major Ramsay.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fool, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Attewell, H. C.
Forman, J. C
Mann, Mrs. J.


Austin, H Lewis
Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Ayles, W H.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Medland, H. M.


Bacon, Miss A
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mellish, R. J.


Balfour, A
Gibbins, J.
Messer, F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Gibson, C W
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Barstow, P G.
Gilzean, A.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Barton, C
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mitchison, G. R.


Battley, J. R.
Greenwood A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morley, R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Belcher, J. W
Grierson, E.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Benson, G
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Berry, H
Gunter, R. J.
Moyle, A.


Beswick, F
Guy, W. H.
Murray, J. D.


Bevan, Rt Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nally, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil
Naylor, T E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Boardman, H.
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hastings, Or Somerville
Oldfield, W H.


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Orbach, M.


Bramall, E A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Brooks, T J (Rothwell)
Hicks, G
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hobson, C R.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Holman, P
Parker, J.


Bruce, Maj D W T
Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B T.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
House, G
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Burden, T W
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Burke, W. A.
Hubbard, T
Pearson, A


Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)
Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)
Perrins, W.


Chafer, D
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Cluse, W S
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Cobb, F. A
Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cocks, F S
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, M. Philips


Coldrick, W
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Proctor, W. T


Collins, V. J.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Colman, Miss G. M
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G A.
Pursey, Cmdr H.


Comyns, Dr L.
Janner, B.
Ranger, J.


Cook, T. F
Jay, D. P T.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Reeves, J


Corlett, Dr J
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cove, W G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Deer, G.
Kenyan, W
Royle, C.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kenyon, C
Sargood, R.


Delargy, H J
King, E. M
Scollan, T


Diamond, J
Kinley, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Dodds, N N
Lee, F (Hulme)
Segal, Dr. S.


Donovan, T
Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Driberg, T E N
Leslie, J. R.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Dugdale, J (W Bromwich)
Lever, N. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dumpleton, C W
Levy, B. W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt Hon. J. C
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Edelman, M
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lewis, T (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Evans, A (Islington, W.)
Longd[...]n, F
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McAdam, W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H G
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Ewart, R
McGovern, J.
Snow, J. W.


Fairhurst, F
McKay, J (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W.


Farthing, W J
McKinlay, A. S.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Fernyhough, E.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sparks, J. A.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Stamford, W



MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)
Strauss, Rt Hon. G (Lambeth, N.)







Stubbs, A. E
Viant, S. P
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Sylvester, G O
Walkden, E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Symonds, A. L.
Walker, G H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)
Warbey, W. N.
Williamson, T


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Watson, W. M.
Willis, E.


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woodburn, A.


Thurtle, Ernest
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Yates, V F.


Tiffany, S.
West, D. G.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Titterington, M. F.
Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)
Zilliacus, K


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Turner-Samuels, M
Wilcock, Group-Capt A. B
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ungoed-Thomas, L
Wilkes, L.
Mr. Collindridge and




Mr. Wilkins

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bin.

CLAUSE 11.—(Minor amendments as to compensation for taking possession of land.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 9 line 30, at the end, to insert:
(2) The following provisions shall be added after 'land,' in the sixth line of paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 1939
'or in a case where land is agricultural land, a sum equal to the amount of the loss or expense directly attributable to the requisitioning, provided that compensation shall be payable in such case of an amount equal to two years rent of the holding at the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the requisitioning without proof of any such loss or expense, and that the tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in excess of five years rent of the holding.'
The Committee will remember that at a early stage of the Bill, when we were dealing with this point, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
It is our view that we can explore that between now and further stages of the Bill, and that with the aid of that particular Section treated generously as far as we can—certainly the expenses under Section 2 (1 d) of the 1939 Act have been treated generously—and with the increase in the ceiling of compensation under this Bill something like justice can be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1119.]
I am very sorry to hear that, as a result of the exploration of the situation by the Government, there was a blank space on the Order Paper. Therefore, we on the Opposition side had to devise this Amendment, and the line we adopted was not that of dealing with the consequential loss, but the line laid down by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, based upon the extension of Section 2 (I, d) of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and also of Section 30 of the Agriculture Act, 1947.
That is citing a lot from Acts of Parliament, but what it really means is that if a farmer is deprived of his livelihood by the working of opencast coal, he can get the sa type of compensation for disturbance as a farmer gets when he is evicted by his landlord.
The Committee will remember that farmers generally thought they should get a larger amount of compensation than the minimum of one year's rent, but in the Agriculture Act their position was safeguarded so that they could not easily get a notice to quit. Requisitioning of their farms is a different thing altogether. A man is in the middle of his farming operations and suddenly the opencast mining of coal is decided upon and he finds that he is losing his land. We claim that he should get two years' rent of his land instead of one year's rent as minimum compensation for such disturbance. If he is making a profit, the Government taxes the profit by making him pay three times the amount of the Schedule B valuation. Therefore, we ask that he shall have at least a minimum of two years' rental as compensation, and that if he claims more shall have to prove that his loss is up to a maximum of five years of his rent. That gives him the opportunity to claim, under paragraph (d) of the Subsection, from two to five years' rent.
There is one other point to which I wish to draw attention. In this Amendment we provide for the case where a man loses part of his holding. If it is not actually in the Amendment, that is because the Amendment was put down in a hurry last night, owing to certain factors which are not completely under my control, namely, the early rising of the House, and because of the fact that the Government had not put anything down on the Order Paper. We believe that if a man loses part of his holding he should be entitled to compensation for the whole of his holding,


because there are many cases where, if part of the holding is taken, he would lose the whole.
I hope this Amendment will commend itself to the Government. In drafting it we have paid careful attention to what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said at an earlier stage, and we believe it to be in line with what the Government have in mind. I hope it will be accepted. It is no good the Government merely giving an assurance. This Amendment is along the lines of what we would like to see done. The insertion of words in the Bill would give confidence to the farmers who are losing their livelihood through opencast coal working.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No Amendment was put on the Order Paper by the Government for the reason I gave in the Debate we had last week, that it was not necessary as we could use the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, and also call in aid certain Sections of the Agriculture Act, 1947, particularly Section 30, which deals with disturbance. It was our view that, without any need for further legislation, we could use the provisions already in being to assist farmers who found themselves in the situation which has been described by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton). For those reasons we did not put down an Amendment, and for the same reasons we cannot accept this Amendment. It would add a further Subsection to Section (2) of the 1939 Act, which would have the effect of increasing expenses under paragraph (1, d) of that Section to two years certain, without proof, and up to five years if cause could be shown why more money should be given. We are quite able to do all that is necessary in, I should imagine, the great bulk of, if not all, cases.
The idea, put forward from both sides of the Committee last time, that something should be done to make good to a farmer his loss of profits, has been dropped. We said it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment, because it would open wide the door to all sorts of claims for compensation which could not be contemplated with equanimity.
Let me repeat what can be done when the Bill becomes law. Under the 1939 Act, we have the rental compensation which is payable to a farmer when his land has been requisitioned. We are increasing that; this Bill will give him more than he gets now, and more than he got under the 1939 Act. His tenant right of compensation is going up, and that will be of considerable help. His reimbursement for expenses incurred under paragraph (1, d) will also be implemented on a more liberal scale than has been possible in the past. We think that the increased help the farmer will get under the 1939 Act should not be disregarded, as it will in a large number of cases be of great benefit to him in this direction.
We also propose that administratively this further concession should be made, that we should use the provisions contained in Section 30 of the 1947 Act to give help to the farmer as thought he had been disturbed—as he undoubtedly will have been—as a tenant. It will be possible to give the farmer in that situation up to one year without proof, and up to two years or more if it can be proved that more money has been expended. The question arises: what more can we do to help? My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture dealt with this point in detail on the last occasion, when he indicated that the Government saw force in the argument of the farmer who might say, "Although a large part of my farm has not been requisitioned, nevertheless, so closely balanced is my holding that by taking this part away you will rob me of profits which I would otherwise make." It has been decided to give that farmer the option either of giving up the whole of his farm and letting the Ministry requisition it as a whole, or to continue, if he so desires, to farm the rump.
If the farmer remains as the tenant of the rump, he will get compensation, under the 1939 Act, for that part which has been requisitioned; but if he clears out temporarily the full force of the 1939 Act, plus the extra that will come under this Bill, will come into play on his behalf. If he decides to go out temporarily while his farm, or part of it, is being used for opencast working he is, in the full sense of the term, an outgoing tenant. If the farmer goes into another occupation until


his farm can be handed back to him in its entirety, he will get the compensation which will come to him. If he decides, however, that although he wants the county agricultural committee to take over part of the farm it will be for him then to decide whether he would like to go back as tenant of the rump. Where he can show, as sometimes he may be able to do, that unless something of that sort is done he will lose heavily, then the agricultural committee will be only too pleased to put him in, to let him farm the rump and keep his own stock, equipment and implements. But he will be there as their nominee, on terms to be arranged, so long as they continue to give him a proper livelihood and he continues to farm what is left to him in a workmanlike manner.

Mr. Turton: On the last occasion the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture used the word "bailiff." Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the farmer will be an employee of the agricultural committee?

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: Would not "agent" be a better word?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The word "nominee" covers a variety of terms which might be used. If the farmer elected to carry on the rump, he would be the tenant of part of the farm. If the whole of it were requisitioned, and he came out and then went back, he might be the bailiff of the agricultural committee, or its agent. It would all depend on the terms arranged between him and those in authority. It is essential that this arrangement should be flexible. Conditions will not be the same in every case. The basis of the arrangement must be that the farmer should get a livelihood and that what is left of the farm should be farmed in the most efficient manner. The need for the Amendment, therefore, does not exist, and I ask the Committee not to accept it.

Major Legge-Bourke: There are cases where the Amendment is necessary. I ask the Financial Secretary to consider the case of a farm which was improved to a value above 160 per cent. of the 1939 value after 1939 by something in the nature of a drainage scheme. If the land is requisitioned, the compensation payable will not take into account the value above 160 per cent. Although

the Amendment would not entirely compensate the farmer, it would give him more nearly fair compensation for the loss which would have occurred if he had tried to let the farm. I hope that the Financial Secretary will agree that, while the great bulk of the cases—to use his own expression—may be covered better than they were in the old days, there is a small number of anomalous cases which require help not at present provided in the Bill.

Mr. York: I do not know why the Financial Secretary should complain that we continue to press this matter. He will remember that, after an interjection by myself asking what the Government meant by saying that they would help the farmer through the agricultural executive committees, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture replied that he would be able to give us more information later on. I have his words:
I should hope to be able to give more details upon Report stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1948; Vol. 446. c. 1128.]
We want those details. That is what we are asking for. The last thing we heard from the Financial Secretary was anything but the giving of further details. In a week the Committee can expect to be given a full explanation. I am convinced that Section 30 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, cannot be used for this purpose, for the simple reason that there is a prerequisite before compensation can be paid, and that is disturbance. In order to achieve disturbance, the farmer must have left his holding. There are cases where farmers have had to leave their holdings, but these are only a very small minority. I do not believe that the Government can use Section 30, but that was one of the hopes which the Parliamentary Secretary offered and upon which we were to receive further details. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture can give us those details.
Further, the Minister suggested that our Amendment would be partly met by the increased compensation available. That suggestion left the impression that the whole of the compensation received would go to the tenant. It is nothing of the sort. Rental compensation is paid to the landlord, who is having a raw deal in this matter. He cannot, by reason of the fact


that the tenant is in trouble, ask the tenant for any of the 60 per cent. increase. Rental compensation does not help to any appreciable extent.
7.45 P.m.
The third point which was offered was in relation to tenant right compensation, but that was a terrible suggestion. If the Financial Secretary had realised what it is, he would never have suggested it. It is the farmer's working capital. Is the Financial Secretary seriously suggesting to the Committee that the tenant should use the working capital of the fanner to recoup himself for losses caused by the Government? That was an outrageous thing to suggest to the Committee.
The fourth point was that reimbursal under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, would he upon a more liberal scale. That may be so, but the promise is very vague. Those who have had anything to do with assessing claims for compensation know that it is a matter of argument between the compensation officer and the person claiming. It is difficult for us to accept that nebulous promise as being capable of being put into effect. I should like to believe that it could be, but I know far too much about Government valuers, having been one myself for a short time, not to be aware that their job is to keep compensation down. I do not believe there is any help along those lines.
We suggest a minimum of two years' disturbance compensation, or its equivalent. There is a very sound basis for that suggestion. On the Wentworth site, the time that the site is occupied is three years. We went to some trouble to try to get the Ministry of Agriculture to take action under Section 30. That would leave two years of disturbed occupation, without any compensation. That is our minimum. In addition to those two years, some farmers have had a higher actual loss during the period of requisition than before. Some farmers have been more unfortunate. Part of their farm was requisitioned, say, in 1943. They got it back in 1946 or 1947. In 1948, they are having another piece of their farm requisitioned, which means that a large part of their livelihood is taken away. As soon as they look like getting their farm into its working position, they have another piece taken

away. It is fantastic to believe that any farmer can make a living in those circumstances. How are the Government, who are responsible for that state of affairs, proposing to meet the position, unless by a suggestion such as we make, the operation of which can be assessed with a fair degree of accuracy?
I have here a list of farms affected by opencast requisitioning. There is a dairy farm of 176 acres of which 88 acres have been taken away, bringing that farm down almost to a smallholding level. Yet the stock is on the farm. Where will the farmer get the feedingstuffs for it. It is very much cheaper to grow one's own feedingstuffs than to buy them, and nowadays what one grows is very much better quality than the stuff one buys. I will not weary the Committee with these long lists, but I have lists of the actual losses made by various farmers under this system. The Government's efforts to meet this case are difficult to understand, and I am not sure that they exist. If the Government would accept this Amendment, everybody would know where they stand, and the losses which farmers are sustaining every year could be related to the compensation which they are paid. If the suggestions of the Financial Secretary are all that is left to the unfortunate farmers, they will not get justice, and it is quite certain that they will be seriously out of pocket on something on which I am convinced the Government did not mean them to be out of pocket.

Mr. Thomas Macpherson: While I was listening to the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), I wondered if he had really heard what the Financial Secretary said. He talked as if no proposals had been made by the Government. When this Bill first came before the Committee, the greatest sympathy was felt in all quarters for farmers affected by opencast mining, and representations were made to the Financial Secretary, the Minister of Agriculture and his Parliamentary Secretary, with the result that undertakings were given in Committee and again tonight which not only meet the situation but show that the Government, in this case as in other directions, are handling agricultural interests with sympathy, understanding and fairness. What could be more fair than the proposal which the Financial Secretary and the


Parliamentary Secretary have elaborated tonight—

Mr. Turton: Surely the man would lose his freedom? It would be far better to give him due compensation and let him retain his freedom.

Mr. Macpherson: When the national interest is concerned, we cannot all claim to have our freedom. We all understand that. We are all liable to have our business or industry interfered with in the national interest. The point to remember is that this is a temporary dislocation of the farm economy and that as a rule it lasts only about three years—

Mr. York: It will be nearer 10 years.

Mr. Macpherson: The papers from which the hon. Member was reading say that it is generally about three years.

Mr. York: The actual requisitioning of the ground is, on the average, for three years, but the damage to the fertility and growing capacity of the soil lasts somewhere around 10 years.

Mr. Macpherson: I would like to register this, that we on this side of the Committee who are interested in agriculture consider the Government's proposals fair and reasonable, and I am quite sure that they will be welcomed by the whole agricultural industry when they are properly understood.
I would like to refer to the proposal elaborated by the Parliamentary Secretary the last time we considered this Bill, that where the operations of opencast coal mining are likely to make the farm uneconomic, the farmer will have the option of having his whole farm requisitioned by the Ministry, and himself installed as the Ministry's agent or bailiff. That is the method followed in the requisitioning of certain types of ships, and was a practice extensively followed during the war, when the Ministry of Transport, on requisitioning a ship, paid the ship-owner interest on his capital and handed the ship back to him to manage on their account. I see no reason why that procedure cannot be followed in connection with any farm sufficiently affected to justify that course. In those circumstances, the farmer will not suffer any loss of capital as was suggested by the hon. Member for Ripon.

Mr. York: He has already lost.

Mr. Macpherson: The farmer whose farm is requisitioned for opencast coal mining will suffer no financial loss; he will be able to follow his livelihood, he will have his income as the bailiff or agent, and his farm will be restored to him when the opencast coalmining operations are finished. I do not see what more we can ask from the Government, and I trust that the Opposition will not press this Amendment, which is not only unnecessary but, in view of the very generous way we have been met by the Government, just a little ungracious.

Mr. Baldwin: It surprises me that an hon. Member representing an agricultural constituency, such as the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson), can defend the Government on this occasion. He rather gave the show away by saying that what is proposed to be done is in the national interest. Obviously, he puts that forward as a reason why the man to be dispossessed should not be paid a penny. Just because something is in the national interest, one individual should not have to stand the racket. If the nation wants a thing, let the nation pay fairly for it. I hope that the hon. Member, on thinking it over again, will not feel that a farmer should stand the racket of being dispossessed because the nation wants something underneath his land. Surely a man who has 20 acres of his arable land requisitioned should be compensated on a much larger scale than one year's rent, which means nothing to him when he cannot reduce his overheads. He has to keep the same implements, he cannot get rid of the tractor, and he has to retain the same men, and so his overheads go on all the time. Two years' rent for having part of one's farm taken away, thus unbalancing the whole show, is not unreasonable, and I hope the Government will think again.

The Chairman: The Chairman rose—

Mr. York: Are we not to have a reply—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: The hon. Member should resume his seat when the occupant of the Chair rises. The hon. Member must forgive my saying that I have noticed a disinclination on his part to do that on more than one occasion.

Mr. York: On this occasion, as on the last, you in your wisdom, Major Milner, decided that the Debate ought to come to a close. I would not question that as a Ruling, but I have a right, have I not, to ask that I should have a reply to some of the questions I asked the Government spokesman? I was rising to make that request.

8.0 p.m.

The Chairman: The hon. Member should address himself to the Chair and the Chair would then probably call upon him, but he will appreciate that there is no compulsion on the Minister to reply further.

Mr. York: I was only asking that I might have an answer to a perfectly proper question which could and ought to be answered. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said on the last occasion that he wanted a little more time to look into certain points. I put those points to him again and I ask him again, may I have an answer?

Mr. C. Williams: If we are not to have an answer, may I first congratulate the Government on two points? One is that for the first time they have behind them an hon. Member supporting their policy. The second point on which I congratulate the Government and the Front Bench is

that they have an hon. Member supporting them whose ignorance and lack of knowledge of this subject clearly entitle him to sit on the Front Bench sooner or later. Those are indeed matters worthy of consideration.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown) indicated dissent.

Mr. Williams: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is shaking his head because he cannot give an answer on this. I find myself in an awkward position because I thought he would give an answer on a matter which affects the farming interests of this country. We have heard a great deal today about the absolute necessity of encouraging the farmers and giving them confidence, but we have had speech after speech showing that we are likely to wreck the confidence of the farmers in the Government and now, upon a matter which the ordinary tenant farmer has followed fairly closely, the Government are unable to give an answer. That is not encouraging the agricultural industry, although I realise that even if the Government gave an answer, it would not he of any help at all.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes 78; Noes 236.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[8.5 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Renton, D.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Haughton, S. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Baldwin, A E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Beamish, Maj. T.V.S
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ropner, Col. L


Birch, Nigel
Jarvis, Sir J
Scott, Lord W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)
Jennings, R.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Bossom, A. C.
Langford-Holt, J.
Spearman, A. C. M


Bower, N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E, A. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lloyd, Mai. Guy (Renfrew. E.)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, A. R. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Challen, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutclifle, H.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Touche, G C.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Walker-Smith, D.


Digby, S W.
Mellor, Sir J
Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Cower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Col. W. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dray son, G. B.
Odey, G. W.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)
Osborne, C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
York, C.


Gage, C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gammans, L. D.
Prescott, Stanley



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Ramsay, Maj. S
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grim[...]ton, R. V.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and




Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R.
Gunter, R. J
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Guy, W. H.
Popplewell, E.


Attewell, H. C.
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Austin, H. Lewis
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Proctor, W. T


Ayles, W. H.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pryde, D. J.


Bacon, Miss A
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pursey, Cmdr H


Balfour, A.
Harrison, J.
Ranger, J


Barstow, P. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Rees-Williams, D. R


Barton, C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Battley, J. R.
Herbison, Miss M
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bechervaise, A. E
Hobson, C R.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Belcher, J. W.
Holman, P.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Benson, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Royle, C.


Berry, H.
House, G.
Sargood, R


Beswick, F.
Hubbard, T.
Scollan, T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Scott-Elliot, W


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Segal, Dr. S


Blyton, W. R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sharp, Granville


Boardman, H.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shawcross, C. N. (Whines)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Janner, B
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Bramall, E A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Ship[...]ev)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Brown, George (Belper)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Skinnard, F. W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, Erwyn (Plaistow)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Bruce, Maj D. W. T.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Keenan, W.
Snow, J. W


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon. C
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
King, E. M.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Chamberlain, R. A.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldt. E
Sparks, J A


Chater, D
Kinley, J.
Stamford, W


Cluse, W. S
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Steele, T


Cobb, F. A.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S
Leslie, J. R.
Stubbs, A. E.


Coldrick, W.
Lever, N. H
Sylvester, G. O


Collins, V. J.
Levy, B. W.
Symonds, A. L.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Cook, T. F.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Longden, F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Corlett, Dr J
McAdam, W.
Thomas, John R (Dover)


Cove, W. G.
McGhee, H G
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McGovern, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McKay, J. (Wallsond)
Tiffany, S.


Deer, G.
Mackay, R. W. G (Hull, N.W.)
Titterington, M. F.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKinlay, A. S
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Delargy, H. J
McLeavy, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Diamond, J.
MacMillan, M K. (Western Isles)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Dodds, N. N
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Vernon, Maj. W F


Donovan, T
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Viant, S. P.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Walker, G H


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Medland, H. M.
Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
Mellish, R. J
Warbey, W. N


Edelman, M.
Messer, F.
Watson, W. M.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Webb, M (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Morley, R.
West, D. G.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Wheatley, J. T. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ewart, R.
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Fairhurst, F.
Murray, J. D.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Farthing, W. J.
Nally, W.
Wilkes, L.


Fernyhough, E
Naylor, T. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Foot, M. M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Forman, J. C.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Oldfield, W H
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T. N
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Ganley, Mrs. C S
Paget, R. T.
Williamson, T


Gibbins, J.
Paling, Rt Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Willis, E.


Gibson, C. W
Palmer, A. M. F
Wills, Mrs E A


Gilzean, A.
Pargiter, G. A
Yates, V. F.


Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Parker, J.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Parkin, B. T.
Zilliacus, K


Grey, C. F.
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)



Grierson, E.
Paton, J (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Pearson, A
Mr. Collindridge and


Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Perrins, W
Mr. Wilkins.


Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Perrins, W



Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; as amended (in Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of provisions of Act of 1945.)

Mr. Sargood: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end, to insert:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall extend any power of a Minister to acquire any land, or any easement over or right restrictive of the user of any land, or to retain or authorise the retention of possession of any land, or to maintain and use, or authorise the maintenance and use of, or to do, or remove, any works upon any land, being land which forms part of any common or open space vested in, or under the control and management of, any local authority.
The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that at an early date a little relief will be given to local authorities charged with the duties of maintaining open spaces in districts which are very largely built-up. That duty has been placed on local authorities in order that they may provide amenities for the public. In some built-up areas, particularly in London, before the war the standard accepted was such that there was a serious deficiency of open spaces. Large portions of open spaces now are being used for temporary housing, agriculture, and allotments. There is no suggestion at all that the use of these open spaces for those three purposes will be affected in any way by this Amendment. It is inevitable that the use of open spaces for those three purposes must continue for a long time; but, if we can get the Government Departments which have requisitioned them to release even the smallest areas of open space, it will mean that we can improve the standard of amenities in London.
The total area of plots and open spaces maintained by the London County Council is 6,705 acres. A year ago well over a quarter of this acreage was diverted from open space use. The exact figure was 1,621 acres. That figure, in the last 12 months, has only been reduced by a little over 200 acres, owing to the pressure which the council and its representatives have put on the Government, and there are approximately 1,400 acres in use for other purposes than open spaces. The areas requisitioned by several Government Departments, including the War Office, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works, just over a year ago

were 370 acres. As a result of the pressure we have exerted, we have managed to get a little over 100 acres released from requisition. Although we have been promised early release of some of the areas, it is clear that if the powers of retention proposed by the Bill are conferred, the present unsatisfactory state of affairs will continue for a long period.
8.15 p.m.
May I indicate what the restriction of facilities means to the people of London by referring to various sports facilities provided before the war compared with those now provided? Before the war, London County Council parks and open spaces included 347 cricket pitches as against 80 in 1948. Before the war there were 436 football pitches, and now there are only 180, and compared with 29 hockey pitches we now have only six. That gives an indication of the need for the Government to look closely at this matter. I hope the Government will look kindly at the proposition contained in this Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel sure the matter is one which should be properly ventilated in this House. The hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Mr. Sargood) has made an excellent speech from the point of view of London, and I would not contradict or alter a word of it; but London is not the only place which would benefit by this Amendment. In my Division there are open spaces which are liable to be seized by the military authorities, and I think it right that we should use this opportunity for getting some declaration from the Government as to what is to be the position. In Plymouth the authorities have tremendous open spaces under their charge and the need of that city for playing fields for the children is very great, as it is in London. They are in a serious position in regard to the dockyard extensions, which no doubt will be affected by this Measure.
Hon. Members who represent Plymouth are not present, but I felt it necessary to put the wider point of view of the West Country on this issue. On Dartmoor most of the land is either Crown land or privately owned, but there are places there where the local authorities have some control over the land,


which are liable to seizure. I am not supporting the Amendment in any spirit which is hostile to the Government, but because I feel it necessary that the matter should be ventilated in the House at the present time. In co-operation with one of the Government's supporters, I ask for their consideration of this matter. I have no doubt that the Patronage Secretary will welcome the fact that I have to do this duty because of the silence of his own supporters, who cannot come and put the position of the great towns and the country in this regard.
I am putting this matter in a perfectly friendly way, because I hope that the Government will be able to meet us in this respect. I wish to emphasise once again that we in the West Country have grave difficulties at times when we come into contact with the Government on this matter. I ask the Government at least to give us some assurance that they will not needlessly use the powers under this Measure to close open spaces and playing fields held by local authorities. I make a special plea for the area which is close to the heart of the West Country, and which is under-represented in the House at the moment—Plymouth.

Mr. Gibson: May I press the Minister who is to reply to this Amendment to give sympathetic consideration to the point which it raises? I am sure that what has happened in my own town, a not unimportant one, has happened in many others, where public open spaces have been used during the war for all sorts of defence purposes. It certainly seems to some of us that the time is long past when many of these open spaces ought to be used any longer as dumps for war debris or places where there are still gun sites and other war installations. To illustrate the difficulty which some of us feel in this matter, I would point out that in London we have, for more than 12 months, been trying to get some of these public open spaces cleared for the public use, but although at the beginning of 1947 there were 1,621 acres still under the control of various Government Departments, there are, in spite of tremendous pressure, a number of deputations and the writing of a large number of letters, still 1,397 acres of public open land from which the public are debarred, under the control of various Government Departments for all sorts of wartime purposes. I press

strongly for some sympathetic consideration to be given to this Amendment so that this land can be given back again to the people of London and of other towns where the same problem arises in respect of land of which, for quite good reasons during the war the public were denied the use.

The Solicitor-General: I feel that the whole House will be in sympathy with my two hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in their desire to see open spaces preserved and given back at the earliest possible moment for public recreation and enjoyment. I cannot help feeling that the Amendment is a great deal too drastic, however, and I hope that for the reasons which I shall endeavour to deploy, the House will agree with me that it ought not to be accepted. Its effect would be that the powers contained in Parts II, V and VI of the 1945 Act could continue to be used until December, 1952, for what have been described as transitional economic purposes, but in respect of any other purposes the Service Departments would have to cease to make use of those powers at the end of this month. We are already some way through February, and I think the House will agree that that suggestion is really going a little too far.
I would also point out that one of the powers which the Amendment seeks to terminate at the end of this month is the power to remove public works from public grounds and open spaces. I am sure that could not have been intended; it is perhaps a drafting slip, but the Amendment would have that result. Quite apart from that difficulty, I hope that the House will agree that this Amendment is not really necessary, because in the case of the acquisition of land, not only is there the procedure by way of appeal to the War Works Commission and the procedure whereby the Minister is bound, subject to certain limited exceptions, by any adverse report of the War Works Commission, but Section 12 of the 1945 Act is incorporated, the effect of which is that land cannot be acquired, where it consists of, or includes an open space or common unless equivalent land is provided in its stead. That is a substantial safeguard in relation to the acquisition powers.
I frankly accept the fact that there is no equivalent safeguard in regard to the powers of temporary retention by Service


Departments under the relevant Subsection of Section 28 of the 1945 Act. I would say, and I hope that the House will accept this assurance, that the Service Departments are fully alive to the need of the public for rest and recreation, and to the necessity for giving back for this purpose, as soon as they can, land which they do not urgently need for their own purposes. I hope the House will agree that with these safeguards to most of the powers which are contained in the 1945 Act and with that assurance, the Amendment is not really necessary, even if it were otherwise acceptable. It contains a fatal defect of drafting which could no doubt be put right, but even apart from that it is far too drastic. It is not reasonable to expect these powers to be terminated at the end of this month. This Amendment goes to the very root of this Bill. Figures were given of the extent of public spaces still under occupation. To expect them to be immediately vacated by the end of this month would be putting an impossible burden upon those responsible for the administration of the Measure.

Mr. C. Williams: The Solicitor-General has given an assurance, which helps me, that the Service Departments will take a kindly view. Will he give me this little help, for I am in rather a lone position? Will he ask the Service Departments to take a very kindly view as far as Plymouth is concerned?

The Solicitor-General: The Service Departments are under the strongest pressure about all areas. I have no doubt the area with which the hon. Member is primarily concerned will be amongst these. It will be the duty of all Members in this House who have the interests of their constituents at heart to bear in mind the necessity for reminding the Service Departments that they really must move as fast as they possibly can, consistent with their minimum requirements, in the matter of releasing land. For these reasons I hope the House will agree that this is an Amendment which we cannot accept because it would be quite unworkable, and would put an impossible burden on the people who would be affected by it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Sargood: The drastic effect of our Amendment is an indication of our confidence in the speed and efficiency with

which the present Government work, but in view of the assurance given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Acquisition of agricultural land where use in existing units is affected by Government war work.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "Whether," and to insert "Where."
I think it would be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the next Amendment in page 2, line 30, to leave Out "not," and insert:
the land is damaged by Government war use.
They both relate to Clause 2, and I hope that the result of the discussion upon them will be that the Solicitor-General will make really clear a position which was considerably confused at the end of the Debate on this Clause on the Committee stage.
Under this Clause, where the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied that the effect on the land of Government war work or Government war use is such as to render necessary the permanent adjustment of the boundaries between that land and other land, he can compulsorily acquire other land which is not land on which there are Government war works, and, of course, land which has Government war works upon it. I think that is the true effect of the Clause, as it now stands. Where the Minister of Agriculture is satisfied, in accordance with (a) and (b) of this Clause, he can then authorise the compulsory acquisition of other land right outside the area affected by Government war works, because Clause 3, which is now being put in Section 6 of the 1945 Act, starts with these words:
Whether there are Government war works on the land or not, in the case of land which is being used for agriculture"—
I leave the next bit out—
the power of acquisition shall be exercisable where the said Minister is satisfied that—.
We start this complicated Clause with the fact that the Minister has to be satisfied of two things. One is that there should be an adjustment of boundaries, and that adjustment is rendered necessary by the effect on land of Government war works or Government use. Even if he is so satisfied, the power of acquisition quite


clearly extends to land whether there are Government war works on it or not. That is how I read the Clause, and I think that is the only interpretation which can be given to it, as it now stands. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree. In any case, I shall be interested to hear his explanation. Otherwise the words
whether there are Government war works on the land or not.
do not seem to be of very much significance. In the Committee stage the question of the acquisition of land adjacent or contiguous thereto was discussed. The question was raised as to whether Subsection (a) of Section 6 of the 1945 Act applied, and we were given the clear assurance by the right hon. Gentleman that that particular Subsection was not imported into this Subsection (3). That, however, is quite a different matter from the question which does arise as to what land can be acquired under this Subsection. If it is open to the Minister to acquire land, whether there are Government war works on it or not, once he is satisfied with respect to land where there have been Government war works, and adjustment of boundaries are necessary, then, obviously, he can exercise his power of acquisition over a very wide area, and without any regard to land contiguous or adjacent to that area.
During the Committee stage the Financial Secretary referred more than once to the severance of farms, but this Clause deals with land. Supposing we find land on which there is a runway—that was the illustration which we discussed before—and an adjustment of boundaries is necessary, does the power of acquisition extend only to the fields in which the runway is built? If not—if it extends further than that—it must extend to land:
Whether there are Government war works on that land or not. …
I think that is the intention of the Clause, though the Solicitor-General shook his head when I put forward that interpretation earlier.
Where does the power of acquisition stop? Does it mean that when there are Government war works on part of a farm, this Clause will give power to acquire the whole of that farm, or that there will be power to acquire compulsorily not only that farm but also the adjoining farm? What is the limit of power of acquisition which is given to the Minister of Agricul-

ture by this Clause? If there is no limit, once the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are satisfied in regard to the other land he can acquire, I can understand that there is no need to take power to acquire land which is either contiguous or adjacent. That power would be unnecessary. The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear where the limit should be. Before we part with this Clause, I think that we should have some explanation from the Government of the limit of the power of acquisition.

Mr. Digby: I beg to second the Amendment.
This matter is fairly complicated, and I am not sure that the position was very much clarified by the Minister's remarks on Committee stage. I was left under the impression that where a small adjustment of boundaries was necessary for the permanent use of land which it was desired to acquire, the widest powers were to be given to enable the Government to acquire not only that stretch of land, whatever its extent, but all the adjoining fields and even the entire farm. Were that to be the case, it would cause the greatest concern to farmers with farms adjacent to any of these requisitioned sites. Unless some assurance is given on that point, I feel that we must insist on this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I think I am in a position to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends who support the Amendment. Clause 2 must be read in conjunction with Part II of the 1945 Act. Part II of that Act contains an overriding limitation as to the sort of land in reference to which these powers can be used, and that limitation is to be found in Section 4 (1) of that Act. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would turn to that Section he would see that no powers arise under Part II except in relation to land on which Government war work has been done or which has been damaged by Government war use. That is the overriding limitation. If the land does not comply with that description and come within that definition, it cannot be compulsorily acquired under Section 6 of the 1945 Act, or, by consequence, under Clause 2 of this Bill. In other words, the powers under Clause 2 of the Bill are limited to land which comes within the meaning of that Section as being land on which Government war work has been


done or which has been damaged by Government war use. In point of fact, the Amendment would simply seek to repeat those words with some slight difference. Thus, if the Amendment were accepted, the opening part of the Subsection would read:
Where there are Government war works on the land or the land is damaged by Government war use.
The two things will be very nearly the same. There would be some few cases which would be within the general scope of Section 4 (1) and not within the scope of the Subsection inserted by this Clause, but they are substantially the same. Therefore, I think I have answered the point, because there is a limitation to work which has been done by the Government or damage to the land by Government war use.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put this question to the Solicitor-General, in view of his answer? Section 4 of the 1945 Act relates to land on which Government war work has been done or which has been damaged by Government war use, and if those words are repeated in Clause 2 (3) of this Bill, what is the significance and meaning of the words in lines 29 and 30 of the Bill—
Whether there are Government war works on the land or not.
What is the meaning of those words, if the point is covered by Section 4 of the 1945 Act?

The Solicitor-General: A distinction has to be drawn between works and work. Works include buildings erected by the Government in the course of its use of the land, and work simply means the carrying out of work. Therefore, whether or not there are any actual buildings erected, nevertheless, if the land comes within the definition of land on which Government war work has been done by the Government during the war, it can be taken under Subsection (3).

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end to insert:
Provided that where the owners and occupiers of the land to be acquired do not assent to the proposed acquisition the Minister shall not express himself as so satisfied until a public local inquiry has been held and he has considered the report made by the person holding the inquiry:

The Clause provides that the Minister shall be satisfied. It contains no condition as to what should be done to satisfy him. It may be that he will obtain the advice of the agricultural executive committees, but there is nothing in this Clause to require the Minister or his agents to make direct inquiry of the farmers who are likely to be affected by this adjustment of boundaries. I think it is right that owners and occupiers of land which is to be affected by the scheme should have the opportunity of placing their views openly and publicly on the suggestions put forward at a public inquiry.
8.45 p.m.
Presumably, at some stage, they will be informed of what is proposed to be done to their land. It may be that, without any further inquiry, or much inquiry, the Minister will come to the conclusion that he is satisfied. Assuming that the farmers concerned—and this is the case with which this Amendment is intended to deal—object to the adjustment of the boundary, it does not necessarily follow that the real grounds of their objection will percolate back to the Minister; they may get slightly covered up by going through the channels between the farmer and the Minister. I suggest that, before these compulsory powers of acquisition are exercised, it is only right that, where there are farmers objecting, they should have an opportunity of putting forward their reasons for opposing the alteration of the boundary at a public local inquiry, before the Minister can express himself as satisfied that compulsory acquisition is necessary.
In other cases—the taking of land for houses, this that and the other—there are rights for public local inquiries. I need not go through them in any detail, and I do not propose to, but it seems to me that it would give far greater satisfaction to the people likely to be affected by this power being exercised if it were known that, should they oppose the making of an order—and it may be that they will have very good grounds for so doing—they would, before an order is made, have an opportunity of putting forward those grounds publicly.

Mr. Digby: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not think there is much I need add to what my hon. and learned Friend


has said. It is perfectly evident that the powers given to the Minister under this Clause are extremely wide. There is no limitation, except that he should be satisfied, presumably as the result of what the representative of a local war agricultural executive committee tells him. It might even be that the farmer affected would not even know what was in the wind until the Minister was, in fact, satisfied. I think we need certain assurances from the right hon. Gentleman on this point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman in moving this Amendment is under a misapprehension. What, I gather, he wants to do can now be done under the ordinary machinery laid down in Section 8 of the 1945 Act. What he suggests, apparently, is that certain action should be taken with regard to the occupier or owner before the Minister himself is satisfied that action should be taken. Anything more nonsensical than that would be difficult to imagine. This new Subsection which it is proposed to add to Section 6 of the 1945 Act lays down the conditions which the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall consider before he gives his certificate. It may well be that neither paragraph (a) nor (b) of this new Subsection will be satisfied, and, therefore, the Minister will not give his certificate. In that case, nothing further will be done. It would be quite unfair to approach the farmer, or whoever is concerned, and worry him with the matter before it had been decided to proceed.
Once it has been decided, and the Minister has given his certificate as laid down in this new Subsection, Part II of the 1945 Act and Section 8 of that Act will come into play. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look, he will find that the whole procedure which he out-lined, and even more, is there set forth. Publication has to be made in the Press, notice has to be given to the owner, the War Works Commission, which is a quasi-judicial body, also comes into the picture, and, in every way, those who object have a right to be heard at a public inquiry, which is, I gather, what he wants. Therefore, if I may say so, what he has in mind is already in the Bill and I hope that, that being so, he will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end to insert:
Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall authorise the acquisition of land to which Subsection (2) of this Section extends.
The Solicitor-General in Committee gave us an assurance that Subsection (2) was not incorporated in Subsection (3). I must confess that I feel some little doubt as to whether that is the interpretation which will necessarily be given upon these two Subsections by the courts. In order to avoid doubt and unnecessary litigation, we have put down this Amendment which makes it clear beyond a peradventure that the power of acquisition for this purpose does not go so far as to cover contiguous or adjacent land. Bearing in mind that this Amendment does nothing but express the views of the Solicitor-General, I hope he will meet us to the extent of accepting it so as to make the position absolutely plain and clear.

Mr. Digby: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I said at an early stage in the discussion of this Bill that I thought this was clear and I must confess I still think so. I do not think there is the slightest doubt about it. The new Clause we are putting in will be Subsection (3) of Section 6 of the Act of 1945. Subsection (2) begins with the words:
In any such case as aforesaid.
That can only refer to Subsection (1). I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman there cannot be much reason for litigation about that. There might be considerable reason for litigation if we put in a proviso which is apparently meaningless because it simply repeated what was already in an earlier Subsection. It will only make for obscurity if we introduce this Amendment, which will have the effect of embodying in that Clause words to which it would be extremely difficult to attribute any sensible meaning. In my opinion the matter is as clear as it can be, and I would ask the hon. and learned Member, if he agrees with me, not to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end to insert:
Provided that the power of acquisition shall not be exercisable under this Subsection


in respect of any land where the owner of such land assents in writing to the adjustment required or recommended by the said Minister.
I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to give me this assurance. In some areas it may be necessary to propose to acquire land belonging to a large number of small owners for the purpose of securing an adjustment of boundaries. This Amendment is designed to cover the case where one or two of these small owners are willing to agree to the alteration of the boundaries but the remainder object. In the Clause as it stands it might be that there could be power to acquire the land of all the owners, including those who assent to the alteration. This Amendment is put down in the hope that even if it is not accepted—we hope it will be accepted for the sake of clarification—we shall get an assurance that in a case like this, where there are two owners or even one owner assenting to the scheme out of a large number, then their land will not be compulsorily taken from them.

Mr. Digby: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is obvious that it is preferable to have agreement wherever possible; that will be quicker and will not involve so much trouble for all concerned.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I can answer the point equally shortly. In our view this Amendment is not necessary for the following reasons. Before land can actually be acquired, two things must happen. The first is that the requisitioning Department must satisfy the Minister of Agriculture that the adjustment of boundaries is only likely if the machinery is set in motion and the land is acquired. They have first of all to convince the Minister of Agriculture that a settlement is only likely and possible on those lines. That presupposes that other methods have been tried. Where now we can get adjacent owners to come together and make some reasonable agreement the Department is only too willing to compromise, if that is in the best interests of all concerned. It is only where it is found quite impossible for any agreement to be arrived at that the Minister steps in and gives a certificate.
It follows after that that the second hurdle has to be jumped, and that is the War Works Commission; under the

procedure laid down in Section 8 of the 1945 Act. Therefore, it seems to me that an Amendment of this kind would simply muddle the procedure, because though it may be true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, that one or two out of a number of owners might be willing to come to terms, if the re-arrangement desired necessitated all agreeing, it would be necessary to go for arbitration, and that would mean setting in motion all the paraphernalia, and a public inquiry.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Suppose there are ten people affected by the proposed alteration of boundaries, that eight object and two are prepared to assent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the land of the two who are prepared to assent to the proposed adjustment will not be compulsorily taken from them?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, because it may well be that the land owned by those two is key land; and although they assent we could not on that ground say we would not take their land. It is unfortunate, but there it is. What, I think, would weigh with the Departments and others concerned would be the fact that two or three people were willing to compromise and to try to find a settlement. That might make quite a deal of difference as to what land was or was not required. We could not give an assurance in advance, however.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 3.—(Highways.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out from the beginning, to the second "of," and to insert:
in the application of the said section fifteen of the Act of 1945 to any highway under the foregoing subsection and for the purposes.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may discuss together both this and the next Amendment, to leave out from "period," to end of line, and insert:
up to the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight.
We have had considerable discussion on this Clause already, and I do not propose to repeat anything I have said earlier, but I do suggest for the consideration of the House that it is unnecessary that this wide power by regulation of closing


and permanently stopping up highways and footpaths which have been stopped up illegally—but which could have been stopped up legally under the Defence Regulations—should be continued until 1952. That is the effect of the last two lines of Clause 3. Surely, that is unnecessary.
I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman of the pledges given by the Home Secretary on this point, which are quite contradictory of this Clause. Surely, if there are some cases where footpaths have now factories built right across them—footpaths which could have been closed under Defence Regulations which are no longer in existence—the necessary action can be taken to stop these footpaths up without keeping this power until 1952, until the Transitional Powers Act ceases to be in force. I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that this is a really reasonable Amendment; that Section 15 should only be continued for the purposes mentioned in Subsection (1) of the Clause; that in any event the power of using this method of stopping up highways and footpaths should terminate by 31st December, 1948; and that thereafter Ministries, like anyone else, like any other body which wants to deprive the public of rights of way, should have resort to the well-known and old-fashioned method of applying to quarter sessions for an order.

Mr. Digby: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: In my view, this Amendment resurrects the question which we discussed at considerable length during earlier stages of this Bill. I find considerable difficulty in answering the hon. and learned Member without repeating the arguments which I have used. I feel that I must repeat, at any rate, one of them, and I submit that it is perfectly conclusive upon the point made. Once it is accepted as a matter of principle—and the House has now accepted it—that the general powers for which we have asked should be continued up to December, 1952, it follows, as a matter of logical necessity, that we should have the particular powers contained in Section 15 of the 1945 Act for the same period, for the very reason that they are simply incidental to the other powers, the life of which is being extended.
It is quite unreasonable to say that land may be acquired, which has a path running across it, but that, although it may be retained or acquired till December, 1952, there shall not be for the same period the incidental powers given by the 1945 Act with regard to stopping up paths and highways, whether or not they have been formerly stopped up under a Defence Regulation. The two things hang together, and I ask the House to agree that it is entirely unreasonable to accept in principle the view that we should have the major powers for an extended period of time, while at the same time being deprived of minor and incidental powers without which we cannot make effective use of the major powers.
The other argument, that we should resort to the more cumbersome procedure of stopping up highways, has already been discussed at considerable length, and I hope adequately. As I pointed out before, it takes months to stop up highways by that procedure, and the procedure we propose to use is the very procedure devised by the 1945 Act. Why, when extending the powers given by that Act, should we reject the very machinery which that Act provides to implement them? The two things go together, and I ask the House to say that there is no solid ground for this Amendment when the main principle of the Bill has already been accepted.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems and the repayment to the Post Office Fund of moneys applied thereout for such development, it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole seventy-five million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development or of such repayment;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued, or for repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, and to authorise payment into the Exchequer of any sums so borrowed;




(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY] BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL MARINES [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Volunteer Reserve of Royal Marines and to amend the law with respect to engagements in the Royal Marines, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Admiralty under the provisions of the said Act relating to the Royal Marines Forces Volunteer Reserve.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL MARINES BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

ATTEMPTED RAPE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Punishment for attempted rape.)

9.4 p.m

Mr. Hector Hughes: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "seven," and to insert "fifteen."
The object of this Amendment is to protect women, girls and children from becoming the victims of crimes of this sort, to deter, punish and give a longer opportunity for reform of those criminals who commit this crime, and to bring the penalties for this crime more into line with the penalties imposed for other crimes. I would draw attention to the fact that the penalty for the crime of murder is death, and the penalty for attempted murder is life imprisonment. The penalty for the crime of rape is life imprisonment, but the penalty for attempted rape is only two years' imprisonment, which is a great

disparity. Rape, in its turpitude and in its effect on the community is second only to murder.
It is well for the Committee to remember that this is an enabling Clause. It enables a judge to impose a sentence not exceeding seven years' penal servitude for attempted rape. If we have confidence in the good sense of the judges in the High Court, as I am sure we have, there is no reason why they should not be given adequate powers to deal with sentences of this kind. If the judges go wrong, there is always the Court of Criminal Appeal to set them right, but the law reports show that the judges very seldom go wrong in matters of this kind. In my submission, the judges should have adequate power to apply their experience and common sense to the question of what the penalty should be for this crime, which is a shocking, devastating and anti-social crime.
The Committee will, I am sure, consider the effect of this crime in relation to the offender, to the victim and to the public. As to the offender, it was no virtue on his part that made his attack only an attempt and prevented him from realising his object. He did his best, or his worst, to achieve the offence; his turpitude is just as great as if he had succeeded. His intention was evil, to commit this crime which is next in depravity to murder. It is calculated to wreck the lives of women, girls and children.
The offender may have failed to realise his object only by the superior strength of the girl he attacked, or, perhaps, because he was interrupted by others, or, because, as is so often the case, he was suffering from some physical disability. How often have we heard of cases of men suffering from disabilities of that sort who, time and again, have made victims of young girls and young children, and have not got beyond the attempt stage. In my submission, such a man should be punished almost as severely as if he had realised his object. He should be given a period of time of sufficiently long duration to enable adequate curative treatment to be applied, and to give him a chance of recovery from his predilections for that kind of crime.

Colonel Dower: Will the hon. and learned


Member give an indication of what the curative treatment should be?

Mr. Hughes: I have dealt with the offence, and if the hon. and gallant Member resents my observations with regard to the offence, I cannot help it.

Colonel Dower: I did not resent them.

Mr. Hughes: Let me say a word about the victim. The victim may be, and is too often, a child of tender years, who, when going to school or at play, was enticed by sweets or a promise of a ride in a motor car, taken away and made the victim of an attack of this kind. It may be a young girl—the papers are full of such cases—or it may be a young wife whose domesticity and family circle are wrecked by this kind of attack. From the point of view of the community, attacks of this kind create insecurity and render unsafe the lives of women and children. By passing this Amendment, the Committee will express confidence in the good sense of the judges of the High Court. They will extend the powers of the judges to do good. They will punish the evildoer and extend his period of curative treatment. They will protect the women and girls of the country and bring security to the community from crimes of this sort—security which is very badly required.

9.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): In the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, there appeared to be substantial agreement with the course proposed to be taken under this Clause. Anybody who has any experience of the criminal courts knows that the penalty which may be inflicted in any case for a particular offence may vary enormously. They will also know that what is considered to be a working maximum for any particular type of offence is a matter of convention from one period to another.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) spoke of bringing the penalty for this offence into line with other penalties. If one looks through the whole criminal calendar, one can find a number of offences for which the maximum penalty is 14 years or even more. I might say that they are a very odd lot. The maximum penalty which may be imposed for a particular offence is determined not so

much by logic let alone by the practice of the courts in this particular age, as by history. There are offences connected with embezzlement, the forgery of the registry of births, exporting counterfeit coins, offences connected with arson and other offences which have no connecting thread running through them, which are punishable by 14 years' imprisonment. There are others which appear to us to be more serious and which carry lesser maximum penalties. I do not think very much could be gained by fixing the maximum by relation to other crimes in the calendar unless they were fairly closely related to the type of offence that one is considering.
On the Second Reading, I referred to one such case, namely, assault with intent to commit robbery, when the penalty is five years, though it can be greater in the case of aggravated assault or assault while armed. It was my impression that the House was in substantial agreement with the present maximum penalty of two years. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] My hon. Friend says, "No," but perhaps he was not here during the Second Reading Debate. What was expressed by all hon. Members who spoke in the Debate was that there was a case for raising the existing two years. No one suggested that seven years was inadequate, and I should have thought those who know the practice of the courts at the present time would agree that for the worst type of offence, seven years is certainly not excessive, and there were few if any cases where a modern judge wished to impose a more severe penalty. I submit that seven years, which is the figure mentioned in the Clause, is approximately the right maximum and this Amendment should be rejected.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of Order, Sir Robert; are you not going to call my second Amendment, in page 1, line 9, at end, to add,
(2) Every person convicted of attempted rape may be ordered as part of the penalty on such conviction to pay to the person against whom the offence was committed such compensation as the court shall see fit.
(3) The order for payment of any such compensation shall be made out and delivered by the proper officer of the court to the person entitled to receive the same or to some one


on her behalf to be named in such order by the director of the court and every such order shall be executed by the sheriff of the place where such convicted person or his estate shall be.
(4) In the event of a person so convicted as aforesaid being unable or unwilling or in the event of the estate of a person so convicted being, after his death, insufficient to pay such compensation the said compensation shall be payable out of moneys provided by Parliament.
I quite realise that there may be an objection to the second paragraph of my Amendment, but, in my respectful submission the first paragraph is of exceptional interest, and I ask that it be considered.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): The first part of the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill, and the second part is not covered by the Money Resolution.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not possible for the second part to be considered?

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not possible for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the Committee passes from the Clause it is right that the major point which the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) had in mind on the second Amendment, which did not have the good fortune to be selected, should be put forward. That point is that it is not sufficient to lay down a purely penal provision affecting the guilty man, but that some provision—

The Deputy-Chairman: As the Amendment was ruled out of Order, it is beyond the scope of the Debate for it to be discussed on this Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully appreciate that. The Clause provides a penalty, and therefore it is surely in order to argue that the penalty is insufficient. My argument was directed to that point, that the penalty imposed was solely on the guilty man for the benefit of the State to remove his liberty and did not make any provision whatever for compensating the victim. I submit that an argument which is in Order is that some part of the penalty should be so arranged as to compensate the victim. That is a point of very great importance, not only on this Bill but throughout the whole of our criminal law,

and it is right that the initiative of the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen should not be allowed to pass wholly unrewarded merely because he has been unfortunate in the drafting of his Amendment. I suggest that the penalty provided is inadequate.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to that point of Order—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That was not a point of Order.

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I draw your attention, Sir Robert, to the fact that in my first proposed Subsection I referred expressly—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already given my Ruling on that Amendment. The question now is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and remarks must be confined to the Clause as it is now.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Benson: We cannot allow this Bill to go through practically without Debate. On the Second Reading the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) stated quite correctly that this Bill was in entire contradiction to the trend of our penal development over the last half century. When we get a Bill which reverses a tendency, it requires very careful examination.
I was unfortunately unable to be present on Second Reading, but I have read the case put up for the Bill by the Under-Secretary and I find it extremely unconvincing. He made two points. One was a statistical point and the other was an appeal to so-called authorities. Let us take his statistical point to begin with. The number of convictions for rape and attempted rape before the war was somewhere about 40 per annum. In the case of rape, as in the case of a very large number of crimes of violence, there was a sharp increase just after the war ceased.
In 1945 the number of convictions amounted to 100, but in 1946 they had dropped to 65. Quite obviously this was a temporary peak and the peak is already past. I ask the Under-Secretary whether he can point to any other crime of violence where the figures have dropped by 35 per cent. since 1945. There is certainly no case whatever for what is little more than panic legislation on the figures he produced. We have an almost identical example of panic legislation in the case of the Garrotting Act which was passed after garrotting had passed its peak and which has, as statistics show, been entirely unnecessary and ineffective.
With regard to his appeal to authority he said that the judges required this, and the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) backed him up in the suggestion that the judges were excellent authorities on this matter. Since when have the judges had anything to say about penalties that is of any value—

Mr. David Renton: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to attack the judges at large in the harsh terms in which he is doing, when the judges are unable to come to this House and defend themselves against any attacks made?

Mr. Benson: Further to that point of Order. If it is permissible for the Under-Secretary and for the hon. Member for Huntingdon to quote the opinion of the judges in favour, surely I can impugn that judgment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young): I am afraid both hon. Members are out of Order on this matter. On the Third Reading of a Bill hon. Members are confined to speaking on what is in the Bill, and the only question is the seven years which is put into this Bill.

Mr. Benson: I am proposing to attack the seven years. The argument put forward on Second Reading was that the seven years was necessary because the judges thought so. I deny that seven years is necessary, and I deny that the opinion of the judges, which has invariably been wrong on penal matters, is evidence in favour of the seven years. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is only an opinion."] I am entitled to my opinion. If hon. Members will look at the opinion of the judges from the time when they

opposed the abolition of the death penalty for theft of five shillings down to the time when they gave evidence that flogging was a valuable deterrent only a few years ago—[An HON. MEMBER: "Five shillings?"] Five shillings stolen from a dwelling house. However, I will not argue any further on the question of the opinion of the judges, because they have proved to be so wrong.
What is the purpose behind this increase, and what do the Government hope it will achieve? It is not a question of what the judges or anybody else think as to the necessity for it. There are two alternative possibilities as to the purpose of the seven years. It may be a desire purely to increase retributive punishment, or it may be based on the idea that the increase will result in a more effective deterrence. Retributive punishment, the House will remember, is only a polite name for pure vengeance. These two purposes—and judging by the speech of the Under-Secretary both are apparently in his mind—are entirely different purposes; there is no connection between the two. Unfortunately, retributive punishment and deterrence have been, through the whole of our criminal history, inextricably confused in the public mind, and in the mind of Parliament. This confusion has bedevilled our penal system for the last 150 years. It would not be so serious from the point of view of society if retributive punishment had not very seriously interfered with the efficacy of deterrence. I need only point to the severity of our penal system in the 19th century, and to the Report of the Gladstone Committee that it had the effect of turning the casual offender into the habitual criminal. That was the result of the urge to incorporate into our penal system this retributive punishment.
There is only one rational reason for a penal system. That is that it shall protect society, and to protect society there must obviously be sanction. The aim of a penal system ought to be to adjust the sanctions in such a way that they reduce any infraction of the law to a minimum. Does this Bill help in that? How far is it likely to increase the deterrent effect of the penalty, or how far is it purely retributive? Any punishment which goes beyond mere deterrence, any punishment which goes beyond the minimum sanction requisite to reduce crime


to a minimum, is obviously purely retributive.
How far is the Bill a deterrent? How far is it likely to reduce the incidence of rape, or attempted rape? What is the mechanism of deterrence, and how does deterrence operate? So far as I can understand it, a deterrent operates in this way. If a man has an intention of committing an offence, he refrains from committing it for fear of the penalty he will incur, but that operates on the intention of the would-be delinquent, and prevents him carrying out his intention. I suggest that no one yet in the history of this country has ever started out with the intention of committing an attempted rape. He starts out with the intention of committing rape, and the penalty for rape is imprisonment for life. If he commits attempted rape he is—I am not attacking hon. Members opposite.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Why does the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) point with such vigour?

Mr. Benson: There was no implied guilt. Perhaps I was more vigorous because this is a matter on which I feel very deeply. I think the House will understand my point that no one starts out with the intention of committing attempted rape. Whoever commits attempted rape, starts out with the intention of committing an offence for which the penalty is imprisonment for life. If by chance or accident he fails to accomplish his intentions, the result is attempted rape, and he is not likely to be deterred by a minor sentence of seven years, when he has already risked the major sentence of imprisonment for life.
Quite obviously this increase of penalty from two years to seven years can have no effect on the intentions of the people who are ultimately found guilty of the offence. If it can have no effect upon their intentions it is quite obviously not likely to have any deterrent effect. In other words, so far as the effect of the Bill is concerned, it is purely retributive punishment and not a deterrent at all. I suggest that in a rational penal code there is no room for retributive punishment. If one examines what retributive punishment means it becomes quite obviously an impossibility. Retribution

has no meaning whatever unless the retribution equates with the wickedness of the offender. If it exceeds that, it is no longer retribution, it is pure vengeance; and how can we assess wickedness? How can we measure the wickedness of a man? We can measure his offence, but wickedness inheres to the individual and not to the offence. Therefore, because we cannot measure wickedness there is no criterion by which we can measure the amount of retribution, so our retribution fails as being something entirely irrational. There is one measure that can be applied to retribution. An attempt at retribution is not an assessment of the wickedness of the offender; it is merely a measure of the horror or disgust which is felt of the offender or of the offence. It is an emotional approach, not a rational one.

Colonel Dower: Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who I recognise is speaking with earnestness, that surely all his arguments would apply equally to attempted murder? Surely he would not suggest that there should be no retribution in that case?

Mr. Benson: Certainly. I am opposed to retribution in any shape or form. Retribution cannot be measured, and that is why there is so much wisdom in the phrase:
Vengeance is mine … saith the Lord
because there is no one else capable of measuring vengeance.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend implying that an attempt at any crime which fails, whether it is murder or rape, should have no punishment whatever?

Mr. Speaker: We are getting far from what is in order on the Third Reading of this Bill. The Third Reading is confined to what is in the Bill and is not concerned with the motives behind it or anything else. On Second Reading it has been decided that certain penalties would be imposed. Therefore, one cannot go into the various motives which may have induced those proposals.

Mr. Benson: With the greatest respect, I was trying to deal not with motives but with the effect of the proposals, and my contention is that instead of being a deterrent, which they cannot be in the circumstances, they must necessarily be retributive. The motives of the Home


Secretary and the Under-Secretary are something which one can only surmise. One can judge what is the actual effect of the Bill, and I submit, with the greatest respect, that it is entirely in Order, on Third Reading, to consider the effect.
This Bill has the effect of introducing retribution. I quite admit that there is a grave difficulty in the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) has raised, but that is because our whole penal system—I will not go into this point at great length—is completely shot through with all kinds of illogicalities, and the approach it has is not rational. All one can do at the present moment is to tinker with it, or, as I am trying to do, prevent it from being made worse. If this Bill were a deterrent, I would be prepared to support it, but it is not. It cannot be. It is retributive, and because retribution, as I say, has bedevilled our penal system for a century and a half, and made it ineffective as a protection for society though I may be illogical I say, at any rate, we can prevent—at least I am trying to prevent—our penal system from being made worse than it is by the introduction of a heavy penalty, which can have no effect upon the incidence of crime.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I certainly propose to divide against this Bill. I think it is an unnecessary Bill, an obscurantist Bill and an extremely dangerous Bill. My hon. Friend has pointed out the absurdity of the case which is here put forward. It is said that there are a lot of violent people about and, therefore, we must have an extra deterrent. That is the way in which it is put. There is no conceivable reason for deterring people from doing something which nobody has ever set out to do. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, nobody has ever set out to attempt to commit rape. They have set out to commit rape, and the only effect, from a deterrent point of view, which this Bill can have is to say to the man who is attempting to commit rape, "You had better go on, you had better complete what you are doing, because it will not make much odds." We are closing the gap between the completed offence and the attempted offence. Therefore, when a man has started to try he may as well go on.
As far as being a deterrent is concerned, it works in precisely the opposite way. If it is not intended as a deterrent, how else can we justify this increase in the sentence? Can it be justified as reformative? Anybody who really has any idea at all about these things will not imagine that the excessive sexual enthusiasm of a man is going to be rectified by imposing upon him a long period of unnatural living. That is what a long sentence of penal servitude does. We come now to this sheer question of vengeance. This Bill is aimed at preventing the wrongful giving in to emotional urges. That is precisely what we are doing if we call for vengeance. We are doing the very thing which this Bill is aimed at preventing.

Mr. Speaker: I really must remind the House that we have had a Second Reading of this Bill, and now the only point, so far as I can see, is whether the law shall have the power to pass a seven-year sentence instead of the shorter penalty. That really is all that is in this Bill. The reasons for it have been settled and decided, I gather, on Second Reading. Now we are on Third Reading, which deals with what is in the Bill, and nothing else.

Mr. Paget: My remarks are designed to argue that we should not encourage a penalty of seven years. I have attempted to put forward reasons why seven years—the increased sentence—should not be put in the Bill. I will endeavour strictly to confine myself to that point.
I would say that another reason why we should not have that long sentence in this type of case is the really terrible difficulty which arises when one considers the question of definition. What amounts to an attempt to commit rape? It is a terribly difficult thing to define. Many girls say, "No," but there are quite a lot of those girls who would be profoundly disappointed if they were taken at their word. That is always the difficulty in this case. It is in female psychology to wish, to some extent, to be overcome by a superior male. In these cases, just how is a man to know at what point it becomes an attempt? When we have these difficulties of definition, a long sentence of penal servitude is inappropriate.
This is just the type of offence where there is a really dreadful danger of miscarriage of justice. Again, I say that that is a reason why it should not have a long sentence of penal servitude. A girl and a boy are surprised together in a compromising situation. The girl, in order to provide herself with an excuse, screams. The boy runs away. Then there is a charge of attempted rape. It is often a difficult charge to meet. I was present at Nottingham at what I was convinced certainly was a dreadful miscarriage of justice, when a man was charged with this offence and, because he was married, he would not put forward the real defence, which was consent. He denied the whole thing, with the result that he was convicted in circumstances in which I know that the police were entirely convinced that he was innocent. That is the sort of danger which is run with this sort of case. It is very dangerous to have penal servitude.
I wish to make one further point which is very relevant. Another reason why it is extremely important that we should have a low limit is that on this sort of matter judges' opinions vary enormously. We get some judges who, perhaps, have not had a very large experience of the world. That happens with specialists who have been brought up in the law and who may have a "crank" view about these sexual questions. We have others who take quite a different view. The sentence which will be imposed in this sort of case is a lottery depending upon the judge before whom a man happens to appear. If we wish to limit that lottery, we should confine the sentence to a low upper limit. I have had a good deal of practice in the criminal courts. I feel that it would be a desperately dangerous thing to give some judges power to impose seven years penal servitude in these cases.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member will forgive me for interrupting. He says, "some judges." Is he not making a reflection? Hon. Members must make no reflection on judges as individuals.

Mr. Paget: I am sorry. I was referring to the matter—

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Is it a reflection on

His Majesty's judges to express the view that some judges would give very different sentences to others? It is a view often expressed by members of the Bench that there is a very great variation between what one judge will do by way of sentence and what another will do.

Mr. Speaker: I gathered from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that he had a particular judge in mind. That is why I jumped up very quickly.

Mr. Paget: If I may say a word of personal explanation, I can assure you, Sir, that I had no particular judge in mind. Some judges take one view in this type of case, and some judges take an extremely different view.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I accept the hon. and learned Member's explanation.

Mr. Paget: Therefore, I put the argument that we should have a low limit.

9.50 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): In the whole of the consideration that has been given to this matter by my two hon. Friends who have spoken on it, they have dealt with the effect of this Measure on the offender. There are few cases in which it is more necessary to have regard to the effect on the offended, and, particularly, on the relatives of the offended. No one who has been associated with the courts, and has come out of court and mingled with relatives of women who have brought allegations of this kind and have found that the jury have supported them and then discovered that the judge or chairman of quarter sessions could give no more than two years as a penalty, will have failed to realise that these people thought that there had been an inadequate recognition by the State of the enormity of the offence that had been committed against the girl or woman to whom they were related.
It is extremely important that we should keep respect for the law not merely among offenders, but among the people who have been offended, so that they may feel that the law is something in which they can put their trust, and that its impartial administration by the courts will support the standard of morality and conduct which they think ought to be observed.
It is true that no one starts out to commit attempted rape. The victim may often


have endured all the indignity, all the terror, all the bestiality that is really connected with the accomplishment of the crime, and it is not a matter of congratulation to the offender that he should have been baulked of what he intended to do. I can recall myself, as a justice at quarter sessions, when we have gone out to consider the sentence that should be imposed after a man has been found guilty of this offence by a jury, the feeling that the magistrates had that this penalty, the maximum that they could inflict, was utterly inadequate to mark the feeling that the courts ought to show with regard to this offence.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) to condemn retribution in every form, but a penalty must, to some extent, be retributive. There are cases in which it can be determined, and, wherever it can be determined, it should be determined. There may be cases where the punishment should be reformative, but the aspect of retribution, particularly in this kind of case, cannot be lost sight of, and I ask my hon. Friends to realise that this present penalty, when viewed from the point of view of those who have been offended, appears to be utterly inadequate. A person may be in a court of quarter sessions and may hear a man sentenced to three or even five years' penal servitude for offences against property, and quite rightly, and then find that this particular offence comes up and a sentence of two years' imprisonment is imposed. They express their surprise at what they regard as the leniency of the court, and they are horrified and sometimes terrified to discover that the court has given the utmost penalty that it can impose.
It does not follow that if we raise the maximum limit to seven years every offender will get seven years; but it does enable gross and wicked cases of this sort to be appropriately dealt with, and, while I do not imagine that any high proportion of the offenders will get as much as seven years, there have been cases in front of me as a justice of quarter sessions where I am quite sure that justice would not have been strained had five or seven years' penal servitude been inflicted. I ask the House to give the judges the greater discretion which this Measure will give them, and not to leave them in the pitiable condition that

arises on several occasions at the present time when they have to say, "I regret that the utmost I can award in this case is two years' imprisonment." I appeal very strongly to the House to enable this, in my opinion, very necessary Amendment of the criminal law to be made.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I do not want to prolong the Debate, but there is one point I wish to make. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the relatives of the injured or offended person in a case like this might be very shocked to learn that a comparatively small sentence, as it seems to them, has been inflicted. I can understand that, and can sympathise with it to some extent, but with a reservation about the retributive aspect of punishment. I would warn the House that juries often arrive at curious verdicts. They know a great deal more about the law than some people think. It is very common, in relation to some sentences, for the jury to say, "Well, yes, but if we find him guilty, he will get a heavy sentence. We do not think he ought to have a heavy sentence, and, if the only way to prevent him getting a heavy sentence is to acquit him, we may do that." All regular legal practitioners in criminal work know that sort of thing happens. The anxiety which afflicts the minds of the relatives of the offended person when they go away feeling that an inadequate sentence has been inflicted is as nothing to the deep and abiding sense of injustice felt by the offended person when she has gone into court and told a true story, and yet finds the prisoner acquitted as if she had not been telling the truth.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I wish to add, in a very few words, my own reinforcement of what the Home Secretary has said to the House. I know I run the risk of being told by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that, like the bench of judges he so strongly attacked, I am always wrong. At any rate, I can claim that I have probably prosecuted as many people for this offence as anybody in the Chamber.

Mr. Pritt: Does the hon. Gentleman specialise in it?

Mr. Hogg: I cannot say that, but on occasions like this I think a certain amount of experience is possibly worth


a good deal of theory. The small experience I have gathered confirms every word the Home Secretary said. The case for this Bill can be summed up in a single sentence—that there is a gross disproportion between the penalties which can be, and, rightly or wrongly are, inflicted for the full offence, and the penalties which can be, and, rightly or wrongly are, inflicted for the attempt. It is an obvious and gross anomaly that people can be, and sometimes are, sentenced to penal servitude for life for the commission of rape, but can only be sentenced to two years' imprisonment  the commission of attempted rape.
Last year, at Kingston, I prosecuted a man for rape; he got 15 years. The difference between the achievement of the full offence and the attempt in a crime of this nature does not depend upon the degree of guilt of the person who commits it. There are some cases where the man may leave off. In the main, the difference between the attempt and the full offence in this matter does not depend upon the degree of guilt in the person who commits the offence. On the contrary, it often depends on the degree of heroism of the person against whom the offence is committed. It is grotesque to say that because a woman attacked is more heroic in one case than another, or because she is physically stronger, the person who does in relation to her exactly the same thing as another man who gets 15 years should be limited by the law to a penalty of only two years. The thing just does not make sense. If I may say with respect to hon. Members who have spoken in the opposite sense in this House, it is their arguments which are theoretical, emotional and sentimental in this matter, and not the arguments of the Home Secretary.

Mr. William Wells: Does not that emphasise the danger of the gross disproportion between sentences of life imprisonment for rape and two years' imprisonment for attempted rape? Does not the hon. Member consider that there is an equal danger of gross disproportion between a sentence of seven years for attempted rape and two years for indecent assault?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that I should be in Order to discuss that on this Bill. I must be confined to the terms of

the Bill on Third Reading, and it seems to me that the purpose of the Bill is to remedy the disproportion to which I have drawn attention. Other legislation, which I should not be in Order to discuss now, might remedy other anomalies, but I am concerned with the mischief which this legislation is designed to remove, and my argument has been that where public opinion and the experience of the courts justify long sentences in connection with the full offence, it simply does not make sense arbitrarily to fix at an extremely low level the penalty for the attempted offence.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Does it not appear to the hon. Member that conceivably the penalty for the full offence may be a little too high?

Mr. Hogg: That may or may not be true. We must assume, unless we are going to hold an inquiry into the whole range of criminal justice, which would not be in Order on this discussion, but only in Order in discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill, elsewhere, that the general level of penalties of our criminal law at the present time is right, and, if it is wrong, the way to remedy it is not by reducing an individual penalty for an individual offence. My own difficulty, with a professional knowledge of this offence, has not been to prevent people from being emotionally angered against it, but to make them take it seriously. Those who have seen the effects of this crime realise that it is a more horrible thing than some of my hon. Friends are apt to believe. I will leave that part of my case, because I am being tempted to go outside a Third Reading speech.
I will come back to some of the arguments used on the other side. It is my conviction that the arguments on the other side have been irrational to a degree which it is scarcely possible to exaggerate. I pass over the attack which the hon. Member for Chesterfield made upon the bench of judges. I only say in answer, that if that were true it would be an argument for a Bill to alter the people who, in fact, impose the penalties in our criminal courts. He used some fancy belief in the value or otherwise of the experience of judges in assessing penalties for crimes, as an argument for saying that these men who have the practical business of sentencing prisoners all over the


country for 12 months a year should not even be taken into account by this House. That argument seems to bear no relation to common sense.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield went on to support his case with an argument the main defect of which was that it proved too much. He said that nobody started off with the idea of committing an attempt, but started off with the idea of committing the full offence. Of course, that is true. But look what it proves. If it is to be taken seriously as an argument at all, it is designed to support the conclusion that no attempt ought to be punished to any degree whatsoever. But if it is once assumed—as we are bound to assume on the Third Reading of this Bill—that an attempt at a crime, and an attempt at the crime of rape in particular, merits some punishment, then it can give absolutely no assistance whatever in deciding as between seven years and some other penalty.
The last argument which was used in criticism of this Bill was used by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and a rather similar argument was used by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). It was that rape, and, I assume, the attempt at it, is a case in which juries, for one reason or another, sometimes go wrong either in one direction or the other, and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton tried to persuade us to vote against this Bill by an account of one case in his own experience in which he did not agree with the verdict of a particular jury.
I utterly fail to understand the relevance of his argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument appeared to be that he does not mind an innocent man's being sentenced to two years' imprisonment, but will object if the penalty is raised to seven years. If it be true—and to some extent we all know it is true—that juries are fallible, and may be more fallible in sex crimes than in others, it does not follow that where the offence is proved—and we must assume it is proved when we come to discuss the penalty—the penalty ought to be lighter because juries are sometimes wrong. Surely, we must try to assess what penalties we think proper for what is a very horrible offence.
It is, of course, extremely difficult, in dealing with crimes of this kind, to preserve an objective and unemotional approach to the matter. Those who favour undue leniency are, in my opinion, at least as emotional as those who favour undue severity. I myself have tried to be as unemotional about it as I could. If there had been a Division on the Amendment to raise the penalty to 15 years, I should have voted against it as being intolerably excessive. As the case now seems to be that seven years is too much, I shall equally vote against that, and for the Third Reading of this Bill. The truth of the matter is that this is a horrible offence for which a serious penalty is appropriate and some kind of proportion has to be observed between the full offence and an attempt at it, particularly in relation to the fact that, with regard to this offence, the fact that it is an attempt is due very largely to the heroism and resistance of the person who has been attacked.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Donovan: We have listened to two very powerful speeches, one by the Home Secretary and one from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). Each of them has stressed that we should not lose sight of the injury inflicted upon the offended person. I quite agree; and I approach consideration of this Bill from that angle, too. It is in approaching it from that very angle that I feel considerable misgiving about suddenly raising the penalty from two years to seven years with no evidence placed before this House that the offence is on the increase, but is rather on the decrease, and no evidence to show—though there are very many rumours to the contrary—that judges at the moment are even exercising their powers to the full and sending persons who commit this offence even to two years' imprisonment.
Approaching it from the practical angle that I want to see justice done to the offended, I should like to give the House my experience within the last fortnight of sitting at quarter sessions trying sexual offences. I found that, although to my mind—I feel I must have been wrong, in view of the ultimate verdicts—the evidence was cogent and conclusive, in the first case the jury found a verdict of not guilty, and in the second case they disagreed. Anyone with recent experience


of sitting at quarter sessions will agree that, unless the evidence is overwhelming, there is a great reluctance on the part of juries to convict of this offence. In those circumstances when, for no visible—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, but what point arises on this Bill on the conviction of an offence? Surely, this Bill relates to sentence after somebody has been convicted of an offence. We cannot discuss whether or not somebody has been convicted.

Mr. Donovan: That is perfectly true. The conclusion I want to draw takes a certain amount of introduction. If juries now, for no visible reason, suddenly find that the penalty is increased from two years to seven years, in my opinion there will be fewer convictions than there were before, and this Bill will defeat itself. For those reasons I very much hope that this matter will be further considered and the Bill amended in another place.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: Most hon. Members who have had experience as magistrates or practising barristers would, I think, agree with the views expressed by the Home Secretary. I rise merely to say that I will support him in the Lobby if his hon. Friends divide the House against the Bill; and most of my hon. Friends will, too.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I, personally, will support the Government on this Bill, but I wish to dissociate myself from the approach of the Home Secretary. I would deplore regarding this as a matter in which retribution played a part. I rise only because of the illogical argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It was an attractively dangerous argument. The argument was that nobody sets out to commit an attempt, but only to commit the result, and that, therefore, to increase the penalty

for an attempt was not to act as a deterrent at all. While attractive, that argument will not bear examination, for it is two-edged. The object of the penalty is to prevent the person setting out to commit the offence of rape, and, therefore, the penalty should attach to embarking upon the criminal act—that is, attempting physically to put the criminal intention into operation. Thus, it can be argued logically against my hon. Friends that an equal penalty should attach to the achievement of the attempt as to making the attempt itself. Their argument, attractive though it is superficially, does not bear examination. I rose merely to deal with that argument, and to say that I shall support the Government in this.

Mr. Benson: I merely pointed out that the effect of this Bill could not be to increase the deterrent effect. I was not arguing the rights or wrongs of two years', seven years' or life imprisonment. I was merely pointing out that there could be no deterrent effect from this Bill.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: I was dealing with the point raised by the hon. Member that to impose a penalty on the attempt when the intention was to achieve the full crime, does not act as a deterrent. My answer to that is that the deterrent is intended to prevent a person embarking upon the offence. Therefore, that argument cuts both ways, and it can equally well be said that the same penalty should be applied to the full achievement as to the attempted offence.

Mr. Paget: Surely the hon. and learned Member is confusing the whole argument here? If punishment is being treated as retribution, there is a perfectly good case for saying that the penalty for the offence should be the same as for the completed thing.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The deterrent is against making any attempt at all.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 17.

Division No. 71.
AYES.
[10.18 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B
Bechervaise, A. E


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bacon, Miss A.
Bennett, Sir P.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Baldwin, A. E
Blyton, W. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Balfour, A.
Boardman, H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Barton, C
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Walls)




Bossom, A. C.
Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ramsay, Maj. S


Bower, N.
Hutchinson, H L. (Rusholme)
Ranger, J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rees-Williams, D. R


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Renton, D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A
Robens, A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Janner, B.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, George (Belper)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Royle, C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)
Sargood, R.


Burke, W A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Scollan, T.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Keenan, W.
Scott-Elliot, W


Chamberlain, R. A.
Kenyon, C.
Segal, Dr S.


Cobb, F. A.
King, E. M.
Sharp, Granville


Coldrick, W
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Collindridge, F.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St Helens)


Colman, Miss G. M
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Levy, B. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Corlett, Dr J.
McAdam, W.
Snow, J. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. D. E.
McCorquodale, Rt Hon. M. S.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sparks, J. A.


Davidson, Viscountess
McGovern, J.
Stamford, W


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Steele, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McKinlay, A. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McLeavy, F.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Delargy, H. J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G (Lambeth, N)


Diamond, J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Studholme, H. G.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G (Penrith)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sylvester, G. O


Edwards, N (Caerphilly)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Medland, H. M.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mellish, R. J.
Tiffany, S.


Farthing, W. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Titterington, M. F.


Forman, J. C
Middleton, Mrs. L
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Gage, C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Turton, R. H.


Gibbins, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Gibson, C. W
Morley, R.
Viant, S. P.


Gilzean, A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Walker, G H.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moyle, A. Murray, J. D.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Greenwood. A. W. J. (Heywood)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Warbey, W. N


Grey, C. F.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
West, D. G.


Gunter, R. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wheatley, Col. M. J (Dorset. E.)


Guy, W. H.
O'Brien, T.
Whitcley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Odey, G. W.
Wilkes, L.


Hamilton, Liout.-Col. R.
Orbach, M.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Osborne, C.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Haughton, S. G.
Paling, Rt. Hon, Wilfred (Wentworth)
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willis, E.


Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
York, C.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pearson, A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Perrins, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


House, G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T





NOES.


Attewell, H. C
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hun, N.W.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)


Foot, M. M.
Nally, W.
Yates, V F


Kinghorn. Sqn -Ldr. E.
Paget, R. T.



Lever, N. H.
Pritt, D. N.
[...]LLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, J (Bolton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Mr. Benson and


Longden, F.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Mr. William Wells.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PURCHASE TAX (DOMESTIC APPLIANCES)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Purchase Tax (Alteration of Rates) (No. 3) Order, 1947 (S.R. &amp; O., 1947. No. 2710), dated 19th December, 1947, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 20th January, be approved."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Mr. Assheton: Since I understand that this is an Order which reduces taxation I only rise to say how much we on this side of the House support it. We are often told by the Government that too much money is chasing too few goods. The ordinary man in the street thinks that too much taxation is chasing too little money and we on this side of the House are glad to see any decrease in taxes.

HYBRID BILLS (PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE)

Mr. Granville Sharp discharged from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) and Mr. Anthony Greenwood added.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

LEATHER INDUSTRY (WARBLE FLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

10.26 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: The subject which I am about to raise tonight, unlike so many other subjects introduced on the Adjournment Debate, is not unknown to the Minister of Agriculture. I ought to say right away that I am not a farmer, and there are many hon. Members in this House who know very much more about the depredations of the warble fly than I do. My attention was first called to this problem when I visited a firm in my own constituency, Messrs. William Walker & Son, which is one of the largest and most efficient tanneries in the country. There I was shown what happens to leather when a warble fly has got at it.
I understand that the warble fly infests approximately two-thirds of the cattle in the United Kingdom. The fly apparently

lays its eggs on the hairs of the legs of the animal, chiefly about the hocks. The issuing larvae pierce the skin and travel up to the gullet. In spring they migrate to the back of the beast, which is the thickest and most valuable part of the hide, used mostly for sole leather. They pierce breathing holes through the hide and when they are developed and mature emerge and fall to the ground, thus maintaining the cycle of infestation. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not know more about the technical side, but I have said sufficient to indicate how the damage is caused.
It is the actual piercing of these air holes through the hide which causes the main parts of the damage, and hon. Members who are not conversant with the industry may be interested to know what the effect of this vicious pest is to the industry in terms of the loss of leather of all kinds. I ought to say that apart from damaging and holing the hide, other hides are affected with blind warbles caused by the fly piercing the hide—after which the hole heals but leaves a scar there making the leather unsuitable from the point of view of high class manufacture.
Hon. Members may be surprised to know that every year leather, which could provide 20 million pairs of shoes for children and approximately 10 million pairs of adult sized shoes, is ruined by the warble fly. This will be well understood when it is realised that well over one million native hides are received with blind or open warbles. Then there are upholstery and other leathers for manufacturing as distinct from footwear which are equally affected by the depredation of the pest. These hides are split into two layers so that 30 square feet of leather is made into 60 square feet. These would be cow hides and 25 per cent, on an average would have open holes and 35 to 40 per cent. healed or blind warbles leaving only approximately 35 per cent. first-rate hides which would he suitable for manufacturing unblemished leather which is essential in certain industries. That gives an idea how serious is the problem with which I am dealing.
The same applies to belting leather and leather for wool combing machines, and although appearance is not its main saleable point, nevertheless the belt is of little use if there are any of these blemishes in it. I understand that belting must be sound and that the granular tissue which


forms in the warble hole would fall out and thus affect adversely its efficiency. As 35 per cent. of all the hides sent to tanneries is all that is available to produce unblemished leather, it will be appreciated that this is a very serious national problem. I have gone into this in some detail to illustrate the colossal wastage of British leather, which, I think, is acknowledged to be the best in the world.
I should like to turn briefly to some steps that have already been taken to deal with the matter. It must be realised that in normal times it would have been possible for this country to import hides from Foreign countries, for example, Denmark, Sweden, Holland and South America, where I may say hides have been practically freed from warble fly by the use of methods which I shall refer to in a moment. But hides are in short supply and in addition there are currency problems. So that we must face the tact due to the warble fly alone that millions of people in this country are being denied footwear and the use of leather goods, and it is therefore vitally important that action should be taken to prevent the continuance of this waste. It is fair to say that it should not be assumed by anyone that the Ministry of Agriculture have not given a great deal of time and attention to this matter. Indeed, the Minister has been personally concerned with this question and I know that for several years he has devoted much time and consideration to it.
From 1936 to 1941 an order was in force known as the Warble Fly Dressing Order, which laid down that all cattle visibly affected by warble fly should be treated with derris wash, which I understand is the effective antidote to the fly when it is in the breathing holes in the hide. Unfortunately, however, as will be realised if I have succeeded in making the case clear, the damage has already been done before the derris wash can be applied. It has been proved to the satisfaction of the veterinary surgeons attached to my right hon. Friend's Department and to outside experts, including those associated with Hide & Allied Trades Improvement Society, who have amongst other things rendered great national service in drawing attention to this problem, that the only known method of killing the bug is by the application of the derris wash to the back of the cattle. In 1941, however, the order was suspended. It may be realised that owing

to the shortage of labour and of material,—that is, the derris powder needed for making the wash—it was impossible for the order to be enforced. I am going to ask my hon. Friend tonight if he will give consideration to the necessity of reimposing this order at the first possible moment.
I believe that is not the only thing that must be done. There must be a concentrated effort to break the heavy incidence of infestation, which would go a long way to preventing the depredations of the pest and to the practical elimination of the pest. If we look at other countries, at Denmark, for instance, we find they have been very successful in their attack on the warble fly. In that country within two or three years of the institution of compulsory dressing, sometime in the early 1920's, they had cut down the incidence of warble fly to less than 5 per cent. That was really a first-class effort because it cannot be brought lower as I am advised it is biologically impossible to do so. It is still compulsory for cattle owners in that country every year to ensure that any warbled cattle are properly treated, and they are compelled to have all cattle examined for warble fly at certain times in the year. I believe that in Denmark there are more veterinary surgeons for every thousand animals than there are in this country. Another factor which helps in that country is that almost all their cattle are tethered, which makes it more easy to deal with them. Here we have three or four thousand veterinary surgeons to deal with 8,000,000 cattle, apart from pigs and sheep, and other animals. I mention these facts, however, to show that it can be done and it is possible to combat the problem if proper and effective action is taken.
As far as my hon. Friend's Department is concerned, I raised this matter with it as long ago as 1946. On 29th July, I put down a Question, in reply to which my hon. Friend stated that it might be possible to re-impose the order in the spring. I continued to press him on this matter, and in March, 1947, he wrote me a letter in which he said that he hoped to re-introduce the order in the spring of 1948. However the Minister did arrange a conference, over which he personally presided in 1947, at which experts from his Department were present. The case was put to him at that conference by


myself and other hon. Members interested in the matter, together with representatives of the Hides and Allied Trades Association, and I hope that what was said on that occasion together with his own expert knowledge on the subject has impressed itself on his mind.
As the only known method of dealing with this pest is by means of the derris wash—that is, killing the fly while it is in the hide—in addition to the re-imposition of this order, which I think is vital, and should be done immediately, there should be more research directed towards the possibility of preventing the warble fly larvae entering the hide, which is the beginning of the cycle of infestation. At the moment, I understand, little is being done about this, at any rate, by the Ministry. Most of the propaganda and publicity work is being carried out by the Hides and Allied Trades Improvement Society to whom I have referred, and I feel it would be very unfair to leave it to a society of this kind to perform what is, after all, a duty which should be incumbent upon the Government.
This leather shortage is very serious and, indeed, I am of the opinion it should be the duty of the Government to take it rather more seriously than they have done in the past. I am not referring only to the order, which I hope is to be re-imposed; I am talking generally about the problem of publicising to farmers and other people the need for taking adequate steps to deal with the pest. I understand that the money for the Society's work at the moment comes from the tanners, and I cannot understand why the tanners should provide it, because, so far as my information goes, if hides are warbled the tanners buy them more cheaply, but nevertheless they are doing what they can to help. It seems to me that the Government themselves should sponsor more research and development work directly.
If this order is re-imposed it will have to be policed. It is not the slightest use ordering farmers to do something unless steps are taken to see that it is done, and in this connection there is the newly formed National Agricultural Advisory Committee, which I understand is in daily touch with the farmers. If there has to be policing to see that this order is carried out, I imagine that this may be a body which the Minister might consider a suitable one for performing that duty.
I am going to ask my right hon. Friend to announce, if possible, that he will re-introduce this Dressing Order at the earliest moment. The argument that there is not the agricultural labour available now no longer holds water. The derris wash has to be applied in the spring, and I understand that a fair number of agricultural workers are unemployed at that period of the year, many of them starting their main work at harvest time. Further, I ask that his Department should undertake an immediate research programme into the whole question of the depredations of the warble fly with a view to ameliorating to the greatest extent possible, this continuing loss of vital leather so necessary for the purposes of our export and domestic trades.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Odey: Before I make my remarks on this subject, may I be allowed to declare my interest? I am chairman and managing director of a number of tanneries. May I thank the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) for his kind consideration whereby, if the Bill previously under discussion had been disposed of before 9.30 this evening, he would have allowed me to raise the question of the Leather (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1947, on the Adjournment. I should also like to thank him for having raised this matter tonight.
As a result of the depredations of the warble fly, there is damage to domestic hides amounting to more than £120,000 a year, and we have reached a stage where we must, in this country, make the most of our raw materials. This is important in the tanning industry, where we import 75 per cent. of our raw materials from abroad and it behoves us, especially in these times, to see that where we have 25 per cent. of the raw materials in our own hands, we take care of them. In Denmark, as has already been said tonight, this pest has been eradicated, and there is no reason why it should not be eradicated in this country. The agricultural committees have a floating labour force, and there should be arrangements whereby that force will be sent out into the countryside in the spring to apply this dressing to the cattle. In a matter of two years the Ministry of Food, who are the ultimate owners of these hides, would reap a great reward, and not only the Ministry


of Food but the whole country would benefit. I have mentioned the figure of £20,000 but it is really more. With the enlightened Government we have today, this is a measure which should have been attended to long ago; but it is by no means too late for it to be attended to now, and I hope we shall hear that that attention will be given.

10.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I am glad that the hon. Gentleman ended his remarks on such an exceptional note. I agree that we have an enlightened Government, and it is a pity we did not have such an enlightened Government years ago. Let me say, first that one trap which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) and the hon. Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Odey) fell into, is the assumption that the agricultural industry is not busily engaged all the year, and that it has large blocks of labour which are not wanted until harvest time. The time of the year to do the preventive work to combat the warble fly is also the time when we are busily engaged in many other jobs in the countryside. County agricultural executive committees have, I agree, pools of labour, but that labour will be much wanted at spring time.

Mr. Odey: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to point out that the labour force required would be quite small?

Mr. Brown: Yes, but do not let us fall into the error of thinking that we have large numbers of agricultural workers waiting to do jobs in the spring. For my own Department. I can say that there is no need for us to thresh out this matter at all. That this pest is a miserable little fellow, causing difficulty and worry to the leather industry as well as to the agricultural industry is an accepted thing. I am advised that a good deal of research work is being done about it, and we have tried to learn from experience.
I was glad that my hon. Friend drew the lesson that cattle keeping conditions in some of the countries which have been freed of this trouble are not the same as ours. Conditions are not so simple for us as for them. We are trying through our own research, and the experience of

others, to do all we can, but research has given no indication that there is any new or more modern or surer way of dealing with it than that mentioned—that of dressing the animal in the spring—the one time in the life circle of this little thing when its virtual immortality can be stopped. Otherwise it emerges as a grub, becomes a fly and starts the whole process over again. Thus the little fellow is virtually immortal. The dressing with derris wash from the middle of March to the early part of June or the end of May is the most we can do about it. Hitherto we have been hampered partly by the shortage of labour and partly by the shortage of raw materials to apply. But conditions are now improving.
The damage to the hides, and what is even more important, to the milk and meat production, is unquestionable. There is no doubt that we should do all we can to reduce it. This brings me to the real point which has to be faced. On the advice I have been able to receive and the conversations which I have had, it is a matter of doubt whether this is so much a question of policing as one of sheer good husbandry for which farmers themselves are responsible. In the nature of things it seems to me that policing would be a matter of extreme difficulty, and, indeed, to some extent punitive measures would only succeed in causing a good deal of resentment among farmers.

Mr. Odey: Mr. Odey rose—

Mr. Brown: I am afraid I cannot give way; I am getting near to my time. There is a difficulty which concerns hill farmers having to round up their cattle, but in Denmark there is not this difficulty because the cattle are tethered at that time of the year.

Mr. Odey: Mr. Odey rose—

Mr. Brown: The point I am making, if hon. Members will permit me, is that whatever we do about the order, this is a matter of sheer good husbandry, and the willing efforts by the farmer himself. He has to accept that it is in his own interest as well as that of the purchasers of his product to do what he can to bring the pest down. It is up to the good farmers to set an example to their fellows.

Mr. Gerald Williams: And further—

Mr. Brown: I am sorry but I must go on. This brings me to the point to which my hon. Friend referred. District committees and agricultural executive committees form a very good agency through which the efforts of good farmers can be set up as an example which can be followed. When the committees are asked, as they will be shortly, to undertake the administration of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, it seems to me that putting pressure from behind will be one of the objects within their scope. I express the hope on behalf of my hight hon. Friend that the committees will undertake that particular job. It would be extremely dangerous for me to involve myself in an argument which is really proper to the Ministry of Food, but clearly the better the product the farmer ultimately produces, the better price he can expect to get, and that is an additional inducement.
With regard to the order, whatever I have said about the real need for dressing being done by the willing co-operation of the industry itself it may well be true that there is a case for the reimposition of this order so that farmers' own efforts may be backed up by policing work which we can do. But there are difficulties about it. There is the call on labour at a very busy time for other purposes; there is the problem of the movement of cattle, and there are obvious difficulties since we rely on the local authorities and the police in the rural areas for enforcing these measures and the various cattle disease measures. There are obvious policing difficulties which I would not like the House to ignore. It would be stupid of me to let the House believe that this order would be easy to enforce. Our veterinary service, which we were discussing the other night, is busily engaged and is inadequate for all the tasks put upon it; nevertheless, they attach considerable importance to this matter. I have had plenty of evidence placed before me today of the extent of their researches, though they have not shown us any very new or improved method to deal with this pest.
My right hon. Friend, however, recognises that there have been changes in the situation since he last decided not to reimpose the order just about a year ago. Since the time for applying a preventive or curative method is clearly in the spring, this is the time to take a decision about reimposing the order. The labour situation is a little easier. It is not quite the difficulty it has been in the past. The derris wash material is no longer a difficulty in the way, and the Minister is now considering, and was considering just before this Adjournment was notified, whether he should reimpose the order. He will take account of the strong views expressed on both sides of the House. He will take account of the fact that we understand that both the farmers' interests and the leather trade interests are united about its desirability—and that of course was not always the case in the past. We have been told about the feeling of the trade and we will consider very carefully whether the order ought not now to be reimposed. My right hon. Friend will announce a decision in a very short while.

10.53 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I am glad to hear that the Minister is considering reimposing this order. May I remind my hon. Friend that in six weeks' time a decision has to be taken, for the warble flies are then coming out. There is also the point that police supervision is necessary. Now that sheep-dipping has been reduced to once a year, surely there will be more time for the police to supervise this. I must apologise for taking this matter up on the Adjournment for the Parliamentary Secretary knows that I am in correspondence with the Minister about it, but it seemed to me only proper to take the opportunity of making these points.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.